TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Smith v. State

Will Smith v. State.

Smith v. State, 1940 OK CR 90, 104 P.2d 1009
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 17, 1940
Docket
No. A-9730.
Judges
Doyle, Barefoot, Jones
Citations
104 P.2d 10091940 OK CR 9070 Okla. Crim. 811940 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 71
Cited by 9

Opinion of the Court — Doyle

DOYLE, P. J.

The information filed in the district court of Oklahoma county April. 2, 1938, in substance, *82 charges that in. said county, on the 7th day of February, 1937, Will Smith did unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously commit the crime of disposing of mortgaged property, in that he did sell to the Norton-Johnson Buick Company a certain automobile, theretofore mortgaged to the R. F. Campbell Finance Company, for the sum of $225, said selling of said mortgaged automobile being without the knowledge or consent of the said mortgage holder, with the unlawful and felonious intent of said defendant to1 deprive the said mortgage holder of the security represented by the said mortgaged automobile.

The record shows that a jury was waived. On March 11, 1939, plaintiff in error was by the court sentenced to be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of 120 days, and that he pay the costs.

A new trial having been denied, he appealed from the judgment by filing in this court on September 11,1939, a petition in error with case-made attached.

No brief has been filed on his behalf and no appearance was made for oral argument when the cause was called for hearing and final submission.

The rule has long been established in this court that where the defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and no brief is filed or oral argument made, this court will examine the record and the evidence, and if no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant is apparent, will affirm the judgment. Walker v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 302, 303 , 64 P. 2d 935 ; Owens v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 324 , 64 P. 2d 1234 .

Upon a careful examination of the record, the court finds the information is sufficient, that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the record discloses no fundamental error.

*83 It follows that the judgment should be and the same is hereby affirmed.

BAREFOOT and JONES, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →
1941: 21947: 11949: 11950: 21951: 11955: 11966: 119412026peak 1941 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Whitlow v. State1947 OK CR 91, 184 P.2d 253
  2. Owens v. State1950 OK CR 147, 224 P.2d 612
  3. Hood v. State1950 OK CR 142, 225 P.2d 1032
  4. Hogan v. State1951 OK CR 76, 232 P.2d 641
  5. Branch v. State1941 OK CR 154, 118 P.2d 1043
  6. Frickenschmidt v. State1941 OK CR 149, 118 P.2d 668

Most recent

  1. Ross v. State1966 OK CR 10, 410 P.2d 565
  2. Dunnam v. State1955 OK CR 49, 282 P.2d 778
  3. Hogan v. State1951 OK CR 76, 232 P.2d 641
  4. Owens v. State1950 OK CR 147, 224 P.2d 612
  5. Hood v. State1950 OK CR 142, 225 P.2d 1032
  6. Wickers v. State1949 OK CR 84, 208 P.2d 1145

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Walker v. State, 1937 OK CR 14, 64 P.2d 935 9
Owens v. State, 1937 OK CR 18, 64 P.2d 1234 6

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