Harris v State

Harris v State
1938 OK CR 65
81 P.2d 330
64 Okl.Cr. 380
Decided: 06/24/1938
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Appeal and Error-Scope of Review in Felony Case in Absence of Brief and Oral Argument-Affirmance. Where the defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for a felony and no briefs are filed, or argument presented, when the case is called for submission, this court will consider the evidence to ascertain if it supports the verdict, and will examine the information, the instructions given, and the judgment

Page 381

for jurisdictional errors, and, if none appear, the judgment will be affirmed.

2. Larceny-Conviction for Larceny of Automobile Sustained by Evidence. In a prosecution for larceny of an automobile evidence examined, and held sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment of conviction.

Appeal from District Court, Washington County; Ad V. Coppedge, Assigned Judge.

Carl Harris was convicted of larceny of an automobile, and he appeals. Judgment affirmed.

Edwin L. O'Neil, of Bartlesville, for plaintiff in error.

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

DOYLE, J. Plaintiff in error, Carl Harris, was convicted in the district court of Washington county upon an information charging that in said county on the 4th day of December, 1936, he did take, steal and carry away one 1930 Model A Ford roadster, the personal property of Claude Oneal, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury was sentenced to confinement in the state penitentiary for the term of five years and to pay the costs.

From the judgment rendered on the verdict an appeal was taken by filing in this court on March 15, 1938, a petition in error with case-made.

The errors assigned questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

No brief has been filed and no appearance for oral argument made.

Where the defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and no brief in support of the petition in error is filed, and no appearance for oral argument made, this court will examine the record for jurisdictional errors, and will read the evidence to ascertain if it reasonably supports the

Page 382

verdict, and, if no fundamental error is apparent, the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.

We have examined the information, the instructions of the court, to which no objection was made or exception taken, and have discovered no error which will warrant a reversal of the judgment. We find the undisputed evidence abundantly supports the verdict and judgment of conviction.