Wooldridge v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Wooldridge v. State

1929 OK CR 116, 245 P. 1116, 33 Okla. Crim. 375, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 115

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 20, 1926

DocketNo. A-5425.

StatusPublished

This text of 1929 OK CR 116 (Wooldridge 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

Wooldridge v. State, 1929 OK CR 116, 245 P. 1116, 33 Okla. Crim. 375, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 115 (Okla. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

BESSEY, P. J.

From a judgment imposing sentence of a fine of $250 and 60 days in jail, rendered upon defendant’s plea of guilty to a charge of illegal possession of whisky, this appeal was taken. The sole •question involved in this appeal is whether the court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to dismiss the prosecution, on the ground that the defendant had given testimony concerning the issues involved before a court of inquiry, and that he was induced to do so by promises of immunity from prosecution. The court heard the testimony of the defendant in support of this mo *376 tion, and upon consideration thereof properly. overruled the motion, whereupon the defendant entered his plea of guilty, and the court rendered judgment thereon, as above stated. The information is sufficient, and defendant’s plea of guilty thereto justified the sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DOYLE and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

BESSEY, P. J.

From a judgment imposing sentence of a fine of $250 and 60 days in jail, rendered upon defendant’s plea of guilty to a charge of illegal possession of whisky, this appeal was taken. The sole •question involved in this appeal is whether the court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to dismiss the prosecution, on the ground that the defendant had given testimony concerning the issues involved before a court of inquiry, and that he was induced to do so by promises of immunity from prosecution. The court heard the testimony of the defendant in support of this mo *376 tion, and upon consideration thereof properly. overruled the motion, whereupon the defendant entered his plea of guilty, and the court rendered judgment thereon, as above stated. The information is sufficient, and defendant’s plea of guilty thereto justified the sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DOYLE and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1929 OK CR 116, 245 P. 1116, 33 Okla. Crim. 375, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wooldridge-v-state-oklacrimapp-1926.