TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Barnett v. State

Lovelace Barnett v. State.

Barnett v. State, 1923 OK CR 322, 219 P. 726
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 12, 1923
Docket
No. A-4304.
Judges
Matson, Bessey, Doyle
Citations
219 P. 7261923 OK CR 32225 Okla. Crim. 2301923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 42

Opinion of the Court — Matson

MATSON, P. J.

Conviction for the crime of grand larceny, alleged to have been committed in Ottawa county on or about the 24th day of April, 1921, by stealing certain jewelry of the aggregate value of $280, the personal property of Mr. and Mrs. S. W. Abrams. Judgment was rendered on October 15, 1921. Petition in error and case-made were filed in this court April 15, 1922.

Counsel for plaintiff in error have filed a brief in this case in which they admit that no error of law was committed at the trial, but request this court to examine the transcript of the testimony and modify the judgment of conviction for the following reasons: First, Because the property stolen was afterwards recovered and returned to the owners. Second, Because plaintiff in error had, on May 12, 1923, another judgment affirmed against him in this court in another criminal prosecution, 23 Okla. Cr. 363 , 214 Pac. 948 . Third, Because the evidence discloses that the plaintiff in error was probably the tool of other persons equally guilty with him who have escaped punishment.

The aforesaid grounds constitute no legal reason for modification of this judgment. Two years imprisonment for the crime of grand larceny in the taking of $280 worth of jewelry is certainly not prima facie evidence of excessive punishment. The other grounds urged might appeal to one *232 having power to exercise executive clemency, but as legal grounds for modification of the judgment they possess no merit. Before this court would be authorized to modify the judgment, some substantial error of law should' be shown. It is admitted by counsel for plaintiff in error that no such error occurred in the trial of this case.

The judgment is therefore affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

BESSEY and DOYLE, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1940: 11958: 12001: 119402026peak 1940 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rea v. State2001 OK CR 28, 34 P.3d 148
  2. Green v. State1940 OK CR 112, 105 P.2d 795
  3. Cowling v. State1958 OK CR 63, 327 P.2d 500

Most recent

  1. Rea v. State2001 OK CR 28, 34 P.3d 148
  2. Cowling v. State1958 OK CR 63, 327 P.2d 500
  3. Green v. State1940 OK CR 112, 105 P.2d 795

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
Barnett v. State, 1923 OK CR 119, 214 P. 948 4

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