TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Spelling v. State

W. B. Spelling v. State.

Spelling v. State, 1933 OK CR 132, 28 P.2d 584
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 22, 1933
Docket
No. A-8657.
Judges
Edwards, Davenport, Chappell
Citations
28 P.2d 5841933 OK CR 13255 Okla. Crim. 1951933 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 60

Opinion of the Court — Edwards

EDWARDS, P. J.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted on his plea of guilty in the court of common pleas of Oklahoma county and was sentenced to: serve a term of six months in the county jail. The appeal is by transcript. If any testimony was taken, it is not disclosed by the record.

The prosecution is under section 2388, Okla. Stat. 1931, which defines a crime where any person willfully and lewdly exposes his person or private parts in any public place or in any place where there are present other/ persons to be offended or annoyed thereby.

An appeal from a plea of guilty may be taken as a matter of right. Hardy v. State, 35 Okla. Cr. 75 , 248 Pac. 846 . Since a judgment upon a plea of guilty is in effect a judgment by confession, an appeal will be unavailing unless some jurisdictional question or question going to due process is presented.

Defendant makes but one contention: that the information does not charge an offense with sufficient certainty to give the court jurisdiction. As we gather from the brief, counsel argue the act constituting the offense must be in a public place where there are other persons present to be offended or annoyed thereby. Citing McKinley v. *197 State, 38 Okla. Cr. 434 , 244 Pac. 208 . The decision in that case turns upon the meaning to be given the word “lewdly” as used in the statute. Clearly the statute is that if a person commits the act in a public place, he is guilty. If he commits it in any place where there are other persons to be annoyed thereby, he is guilty. The appeal is wholly without merit.

The case is affirmed.

DAVENPORT and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1941: 11943: 11955: 11983: 119412026peak 1941 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tuggle v. State1941 OK CR 164, 119 P.2d 857
  2. Daves v. State1943 OK CR 101, 141 P.2d 603
  3. Martin v. State1983 OK CR 168, 674 P.2d 37
  4. Davison v. State1955 OK CR 32, 281 P.2d 196

Most recent

  1. Martin v. State1983 OK CR 168, 674 P.2d 37
  2. Davison v. State1955 OK CR 32, 281 P.2d 196
  3. Daves v. State1943 OK CR 101, 141 P.2d 603
  4. Tuggle v. State1941 OK CR 164, 119 P.2d 857

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Hardy v. State, 1926 OK CR 314, 248 P. 846 9
McKinley v. State, 1926 OK CR 123, 244 P. 208 17
Bowden v. State, 1928 OK CR 24, 263 P. 162 1

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