MANN v. STATE

Annotate this Case

MANN v. STATE
1950 OK CR 50
217 P.2d 547
91 Okl.Cr. 185
Case Number: A-11164
Decided: 04/12/1950
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Appeal and Error Affirmance in Absence of Briefs and Oral Argument. Where an appeal is submitted without briefs, and without oral argument, Criminal Court of Appeals will search the record for fundamental error only, and if none is found, and there is competent evidence in the record to sustain the conviction, it will be affirmed.

2. Intoxicating Liquors Sufficiency of Evidence to Sustain Conviction of Unlawful Possession. Record examined and found to sustain the verdict and judgment of the court.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Horace D. Ballaine, Judge.

Billy Mann was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, second offense, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Frank Hickman, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, J.

The plaintiff in error, Billy Mann, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Tulsa county on a charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, second offense, and sentenced to pay a fine of $500, and serve 75 days in the county jail.

The case was tried on May 4, 1948, judgment and sentence entered on May 8, 1948, and the appeal was perfected to this court on November 6, 1948. In July, 1949, defendant requested additional time in which to file brief. This was granted, but no brief was filed. On February 15, 1950, this court entered an order granting defendant ten days from said date in which to file brief. No brief has been filed, and no appearance for oral argument made.

Page 186

When an appeal is made to this court, and no brief in support of the petition in error is submitted, and no appearance for oral argument made, this court will examine the record for jurisdictional errors, and will read the evidence to determine if it sufficiently supports the judgment, and, if no fundamental error is apparent, the case will be affirmed. See Whitlow v. State, 85 Okla. Cr. 2, 184 P.2d 253.

We have examined the record and find that it properly charges the offense of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, second offense, and have read the evidence and instructions of the court.

We conclude that the evidence sustains the verdict and the judgment. No judicial error is apparent.

The case is therefore affirmed.

JONES, P.J., and BRETT, J., concur.