Blackwood v State

Blackwood v State
1942 OK CR 61
124 P.2d 747
74 Okl.Cr. 223
Decided: 04/08/1942
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Appeal and Error-Scope of Review in Absence of Briefs or Appearance-Affirmance. Where a defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and no briefs are filed and no counsel

Page 224

appears when the case is called for oral argument and final submission, the court will not diligently search the record to discover error, but will make an examination of the information, the instructions, the judgment and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, and if no material error is apparent will affirm the judgment.

2. Chattel Mortgages-Evidence Sustained Conviction for Removal of Mortgaged Property From County. In a prosecution for removal of mortgaged property from the county without the written consent of the holder of such mortgage, evidence held sufficient to sustain the conviction, and that no material error was committed on the trial.

Appeal from District Court, Pontotoc County; Tal Crawford, Judge.

Bryant Blackwood was convicted of removing mortgaged property from county without the written consent of the holder of such mortgage, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Hunt & Garland, of Ada, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

DOYLE, J. The information in this case in substance charges that in Pontotoc county, on or about the 1st day of October, 1939, Bryant Blackwood did commit the crime of removing mortgaged property from the county; to wit: One Chevrolet coupe automobile, one brown Jersey cow and one brown steer, without the written consent of Guy Stinnett, doing business under the name of Stinnett Motor Co., the holder of certain chattel mortgage, made and executed on the 8th day of September, 1939, by the said defendant, by removing said property aforesaid from the county of Pontotoc, State of Oklahoma, to Deming, N. M., without the written consent of the holder of such mortgage. 21 O. S. 1941 § 1834 (Penal Code).

On the trial the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty as charged and fixed his punishment at a fine of $300.

Page 225

Motion for new trial duly filed was overruled and judgment was rendered in accordance with the verdict on the 29th day of September, 1940.

From the judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court March 27, 1941, a petition in error with case-made.

No brief has been filed, and there was no appearance on the part of the defendant at the time the cause was called for oral argument and final submission.

This court has repeatedly laid down the rule that where no counsel appears and no brief in support of the petition in error is filed, this court will not diligently search the record to discover errors, but will look to the jurisdiction of the court, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, and if it reasonably supports the verdict, and no fundamental error is apparent, the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.

Upon an examination of the entire record, it is apparent that the defendant was accorded a fair trial, and that the errors assigned were not such as to authorize a reversal of the judgment.

No material error appearing and the evidence being amply sufficient to support the verdict, the judgment of the district court of Pontotoc county is affirmed.