Young v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Young v. State

1956 OK CR 99, 303 P.2d 652, 1956 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 253

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 26, 1956

DocketNo. A-12316

StatusPublished

This text of 1956 OK CR 99 (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, 1956 OK CR 99, 303 P.2d 652, 1956 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 253 (Okla. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinions

JONES, Presiding Judge.

W. H. (Bill) Young was charged by an information filed in the County Court of Okmulgee County with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, was tried, convicted and sentenced to serve a term of 3 months in the county jail and to pay a fine of $500 and has appealed.

The principal contention presented by the appeal is. that the sentence .was excessive. We do not find this to be so in view of the fact that the sheriff testified that he had' seen over 500 different cárs enter and leave the premises 5of''the accused and of the admission of the wife of the accused on cross-examination that she and the accused had-been in the whiskey business for about 5 years. Defendant did not testify.

Affirmed.

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.

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

JONES, Presiding Judge.

W. H. (Bill) Young was charged by an information filed in the County Court of Okmulgee County with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, was tried, convicted and sentenced to serve a term of 3 months in the county jail and to pay a fine of $500 and has appealed.

The principal contention presented by the appeal is. that the sentence .was excessive. We do not find this to be so in view of the fact that the sheriff testified that he had' seen over 500 different cárs enter and leave the premises 5of''the accused and of the admission of the wife of the accused on cross-examination that she and the accused had-been in the whiskey business for about 5 years. Defendant did not testify.

Affirmed.

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1956 OK CR 99, 303 P.2d 652, 1956 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-state-oklacrimapp-1956.