Wetzell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Wetzell v. State

1927 OK CR 26, 252 P. 1118, 36 Okla. Crim. 107, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 147

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 25, 1927

DocketNo. A-5816.

StatusPublished

This text of 1927 OK CR 26 (Wetzell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wetzell v. State, 1927 OK CR 26, 252 P. 1118, 36 Okla. Crim. 107, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 147 (Okla. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on an information charging him with reckless operation of a motor vehicle, and the punishment assessed at a fine of $50 and 5 days imprisonment in the county jail. From the judgment he appeals. The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the information, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and the sufficiency of the verdict. Upon a consideration of the record we are satisfied that the errors assigned are not well founded. The county attorney has filed a recommendation in the case, and for reasons stated concludes as follows: ‘T feel that the ends of justice will be fully met in this ease if the jail sentence were omitted. I have not heard of any complaint against Mr. Wetzell’s driving since his conviction, and I feel that the fine in the case is sufficient.” While we find the record free from prejudicial error, we are inclined to think that the recommendation of the county attorney should be sustained. The judgment appealed from is accordingly modified to a fine of $50 and the costs; as thus modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on an information charging him with reckless operation of a motor vehicle, and the punishment assessed at a fine of $50 and 5 days imprisonment in the county jail. From the judgment he appeals. The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the information, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and the sufficiency of the verdict. Upon a consideration of the record we are satisfied that the errors assigned are not well founded. The county attorney has filed a recommendation in the case, and for reasons stated concludes as follows: ‘T feel that the ends of justice will be fully met in this ease if the jail sentence were omitted. I have not heard of any complaint against Mr. Wetzell’s driving since his conviction, and I feel that the fine in the case is sufficient.” While we find the record free from prejudicial error, we are inclined to think that the recommendation of the county attorney should be sustained. The judgment appealed from is accordingly modified to a fine of $50 and the costs; as thus modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1927 OK CR 26, 252 P. 1118, 36 Okla. Crim. 107, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wetzell-v-state-oklacrimapp-1927.