TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Beatty v. State

Lee William BEATTY, Plaintiff in Error, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error

Beatty v. State, 1963 OK CR 101, 387 P.2d 145
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 20, 1963
Docket
No. A-13431
Judges
Nix, Bussey, Johnson
Citations
387 P.2d 1451963 OK CR 1011963 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 198

Opinion — Nix

NIX, Judge.

Plaintiff in Error, Lee William Beatty, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was charged by Information in the District Court of Oklahoma County with the crime *146 •of Burglary Second Degree After Former ■Conviction of a Felony; was tried by a jury, found guilty, and his punishment assessed at Five Years in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

From this judgment and sentence, he now .attempts to appeal.

On the 14th of May, 1963, the jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and judgment .and sentence was rendered on the 17th of May, 1963. At the time Motion for New Trial was overruled, the trial court granted thirty days in addition to the time allowed 'by statute within which to make and serve case-made. On the 1st day of July, 1963, the rtrial court granted an extension of 45 days, .and until September 1, 1963 in which to file his petition in error and perfect an appeal to the “Supreme Court”

—We assume this was intended to read “Court of Criminal Appeals.”

The appeal was not filed in this 'Court until September 10, 1963, and would have been out of time, even had the trial court authority to grant such an extension; which it did not.

This Court held in the very early case of Farmer v. State, 5 Okl.Cr. 151 , 114 P. 753 :

While the right of appeal is recognized by the constitution, it is for the Legislature to prescribe the manner and time within which appeals may be perfected; and when such provisions .are made as are reasonable and just, they become jurisdictional, and no court has pozver to grant an extension of time beyond that allowed by statute -within which an appeal can be taken.

(Emphasis ours.) Title 22 Okl.St. Ann. § 1054.

Since this manner of taking an appeal is mandatory, the motion to dismiss filed by the State is hereby sustained, and the attempted appeal is hereby dismissed.

BUSSEY, P. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur:

How later courts describe this case

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

1967: 11975: 11994: 119672026peak 1967 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Canady v. Reynolds1994 OK CR 54, 880 P.2d 391
  2. Turner v. State1975 OK CR 207, 541 P.2d 1355
  3. Jordan v. State1967 OK CR 128, 430 P.2d 824

Most recent

  1. Canady v. Reynolds1994 OK CR 54, 880 P.2d 391
  2. Turner v. State1975 OK CR 207, 541 P.2d 1355
  3. Jordan v. State1967 OK CR 128, 430 P.2d 824

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Farmer v. State, 1911 OK CR 55, 114 P. 753 18

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list