TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lundy v. State

E.L. Lundy v. State.

Lundy v. State, 1912 OK CR 404, 127 P. 707
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 18, 1912
Docket
No. A-1497.
Judges
Furman, Doyle, Armstrong
Citations
127 P. 7071912 OK CR 4048 Okla. Crim. 2911912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 414
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL — Time of Taking — Extension. “Where the time provided by law or fixed by the trial court for making and serving a case-made or for perfecting an appeal has expired, the court has no power to extend such time, and any such attempted older is a nullity. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Appeal from Kingfisher County Court; John Graham, Judge. E. L. Lundy was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Furman

FURMAN, P. J.

Judgment was rendered in this case on the 29th day of July, 1911. At said time the appellant was allowed 40 days within which to make and serve his case-made, and 60 days within which to perfect his appeal to this court. Thereafter, on September 27th, an order was made by said court granting the appellant 40 days’ additional time in which to make and serve his case-made, and also 40 days’ additional ■time in which to perfect his appeal to this court. Thereafter, on the 7th day of November, 1911, the court granted appellant 20 days’ additional time in which to perfect his appeal to this court. The case-made was filed in this court on the 25th day of November, 1911.

The 40 days granted appellant on the 29th day of July, 1911, to prepare and serve his case-made expired on the 7th day of September. The attempt to extend this time was not made until 20 clays later. The order attempting to extend the time was therefore void; for that which has expired cannot be extended, neither can that which is dead be restored to life. But even if *292 this were not true, and the order extending the time was valid, yet the case-made was not served until the 11th day of November, 1911, which was 94 days after the judgment, and the extension, even if valid, would only have given the appellant 80 days from judgment to prepare and serve his case-made. The extension of time for perfecting the appeal by filing case-made in this court, made on September 27th, was in time; but the additional time granted expired on the 6th day of November, 1911. The attempt to extend this time by an order of the court, made on the 7th day of November, was 19 days after the time legally allowed by the trial court to perfect the appeal had expired.

The appeal must therefore be dismissed.

DOYLE, J., concurs; ARMSTRONG, J., absent, and not participating.

How later courts describe this case

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

1925: 11932: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fuhr v. State1925 OK CR 454, 239 P. 679
  2. Shackleford v. State1932 OK CR 103, 11 P.2d 768

Most recent

  1. Shackleford v. State1932 OK CR 103, 11 P.2d 768
  2. Fuhr v. State1925 OK CR 454, 239 P. 679

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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