Young v. State

1919 OK CR 178, 180 P. 872, 16 Okla. Crim. 116, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 163
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedMay 24, 1919
DocketNo. A-2939.
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 1919 OK CR 178 (Young 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
Young v. State, 1919 OK CR 178, 180 P. 872, 16 Okla. Crim. 116, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 163 (Okla. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

Plaintiff in error, R. T. Young, together with Hannah Young, James Fisher, and J. E. Hart-zog, were, by information filed in the district court of Ok-mulgee county, jointly charged with the murder of L. B. Williams, alleged to have been committed in said county on or about the 10th day of July,, 1914. To this information the defendant, R. T. Young, Hannah Young, and J. E. Hartzog pleaded not guilty, and filed their application for a change of venue, which was granted, and the cause transferred to Creek county.

A severance was granted. At the September, 1916, term, of the district court, the defendant, R. T. Young, *117 was tried, and on September 16, 1916, the jury rendered their verdict, finding him guilty of murder as charged in the information, and assessing his punishment at imprisonment for life at hard labor. A motion for new trial was duly filed and overruled, and judgment was rendered in pursuance of the verdict,

From the judgment an appeal was perfected by filing in this court on February 26, 1917, a petition in error with case-made.

The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that plaintiff in error has become a fugitive from justice.

It appears that, after the final submission of the cause, plaintiff in error was, on the 23d day of April, 1918, granted a temporary parole by the Governor of the state for 90 days, for the purpose of having a surgical operation performed; that at that time plaintiff in error was suffering from a cancer on his neck. The warden of the penitentiary reports that he failed to return at the expiration of his parole. More than a year having elapsed since plaintiff in error was granted said parole, and .his counsel having stated that his whereabouts are unknown, it is apparent that plaintiff in error has escaped and is a fugitive from justice.

Where a fugitive has been convicted and sentenced, and perfects an appeal, this court will not consider his appeal, unless defendant is where he can be made to respond to any judgment or order which may be rendered in the case. And where a defendant makes his escape from the custody of the law and becomes a fugitive from justice, the appeal will be dismissed. See Belcher v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 50, 130 Pac. 515.

*118 Upon the uncoritroverted facts the plaintiff in error has waived his right to have his appeal in this case considered and determined. The appeal is therefore dismissed, and the cause remanded to the district court of Creek county.

ARMSTRONG and MATSON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Grimm v. State
1928 OK CR 205 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1928)
Cooksey v. State
1927 OK CR 283 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1927)
McPhetridge v. State
1925 OK CR 431 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1925)
Crabtree v. State
1925 OK CR 145 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1925)
McNutt v. State
1924 OK CR 261 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1924)
Bradley v. State
1921 OK CR 185 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1921)
McKellop v. State
1921 OK CR 11 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1919 OK CR 178, 180 P. 872, 16 Okla. Crim. 116, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-state-oklacrimapp-1919.