HAMPTON v. STATE

Annotate this Case

HAMPTON v. STATE
1972 OK CR 98
496 P.2d 124
Case Number: A-16057
Decided: 04/05/1972
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from the District Court of Stephens County; Arthur J. Marmaduke, District Judge.

James Henry Hampton and Jack C. Henry, Jr., were convicted of the crime of burglary of a coin operated device, after former conviction of a felony, in the District Court of Stephens County, Oklahoma, sentenced to serve a term of twelve (12) years in the State Penitentiary, and appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Red Ivy, Chickasha, Clifford W. Brown, Lubbock, Tex., for plaintiffs in error.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Fred H. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BRETT, Judge:

¶1 Plaintiffs in Error, Jack C. Henry, Jr. and James Henry Hampton, hereinafter referred to as defendants, were convicted in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CRF 69-114, of burglary of a coin operated device and sentenced to twelve (12) years imprisonment. Judgment and sentence was imposed on April 8, 1970, and this appeal perfected therefrom.

¶2 Defendants contend the trial court erred in overruling their motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of their car conducted on July 17, 1969. We have considered the legality of the July 17, 1969 search in reversing defendants' convictions for burglary of a coin operated machine, Stevens County Case No. CRF 69-112, our Case No. A-15,596. Henry v. State, Okl.Cr., 494 P.2d 661 (1972). The same search and seizure was involved in both cases, and our reasons for holding the search unlawful, and the evidence seized thereby inadmissible, are controlling in the instant case.

¶3 Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in overruling defendants' motion to suppress in Case No. CRF 69-114, and therefore reverse and remand the conviction in that case.

¶4 Reversed and remanded.

BUSSEY, P.J., and SIMMS, J., concur.

 

 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.