Condo v. State

D. R. CONDO, Plaintiff in Error, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error

Condo v. State, 1964 OK CR 21, 389 P.2d 648

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided: February 12, 1964
Docket: No. A-13447
Judges: Bussey, Johnson, Nix
Citations: 389 P.2d 6481964 OK CR 211964 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 150

Cited by 4

Opinion — Bussey

BUSSEY, Judge. ■ The Plaintiff in Error, D. R. Condo, was charged by information in. County Court in Haskell County, Oklahoma, with the offense of Refusing To. Allow His Cattle To Be Tested. He was tripd by a jury who returned a verdict of guilty, assessing his-punishment at a fine of $100.-00. Thereafter the Plaintiff in Error filed a.Motion For New Trial, and the same w.as overruled by the court. . From the verdict of the Jury and the Order overruling the Motion 'For New. Trial, th.e Plaintiff in Error, filed an attempted appeal on the 11th day of October, 1963.

Thereafter on the 7th day of November, 19.63, ,th,e .State, .of ; Oklahoma, . by. land through its Attorney. General, filed a Motion to Dismiss this purported' appeal for the reason that the casemade does not contain a Judgment and. Sentence; no response has been filed to the Motion to Dismiss. .

We have carefully examined the record and are of the opinion that the Motion to Dismiss should be sustained, for the reason that the casemade does not contain a formal judgment and sentence as required by law. This Court has repeatedly held:

“Where appeal was taken from alleged judgment of conviction and the transcript of the record or casemade contains no copy of the judgment of the trial court, this Court does not acquire jurisdiction of the appeal, and such appeal will be dismissed.” Peters v. State, Okl.Cr., 365 P.2d 174 ; See also: Helterbrand v. State, Okl.Cr., 365 P.2d 169 ; Wilson v. State, Okl.Cr., 365 P.2d 172 ; Adams v. State, Okl.Cr., 372 P. 2d 884 and Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 362 P.2d 113 .

The purported appeal is accordingly, dismissed.

JOHNSON, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts4

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Van Meter440 P.2d 58 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968)
Baker v. State1972 OK CR 114, 496 P.2d 1195
Robinson v. State1972 OK CR 214, 501 P.2d 215
Jones v. State1972 OK CR 172, 499 P.2d 482

Most recent

Robinson v. State1972 OK CR 214, 501 P.2d 215
Jones v. State1972 OK CR 172, 499 P.2d 482
Baker v. State1972 OK CR 114, 496 P.2d 1195
State v. Van Meter440 P.2d 58 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Smith v. State, 1961 OK CR 10, 362 P.2d 113	12
	Peters v. State, 1961 OK CR 85, 365 P.2d 174	2
	Helterbrand v. State, 1961 OK CR 80, 365 P.2d 169	1
	Wilson v. State, 1961 OK CR 83, 365 P.2d 172	1
	Adams v. State, 1962 OK CR 64, 372 P.2d 884	1

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list