Wortham v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Wortham v. State

1922 OK CR 20, 203 P. 1119, 20 Okla. Crim. 429, 1922 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 82

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 21, 1922

DocketNo. A-3787.

StatusPublished

This text of 1922 OK CR 20 (Wortham 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

Wortham v. State, 1922 OK CR 20, 203 P. 1119, 20 Okla. Crim. 429, 1922 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 82 (Okla. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, C. W. Wortham, was convicted on a charge of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquors inMuskogee county, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury was sentenced to be confined for 60 d.ays in the county jail and pay a fine of $100. From the judgment he appealed by filing in this court on March 28,1920, petition in error with ease-made, but there has been no appearance on his behalf in this court. When the case was called for final submission, the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute the appeal. An examination of the record discloses no prejudicial error. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, C. W. Wortham, was convicted on a charge of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquors inMuskogee county, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury was sentenced to be confined for 60 d.ays in the county jail and pay a fine of $100. From the judgment he appealed by filing in this court on March 28,1920, petition in error with ease-made, but there has been no appearance on his behalf in this court. When the case was called for final submission, the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute the appeal. An examination of the record discloses no prejudicial error. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1922 OK CR 20, 203 P. 1119, 20 Okla. Crim. 429, 1922 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wortham-v-state-oklacrimapp-1922.