Jennings v. State

• Decision Date: 16 April 1947
• Docket Number: A-10705.
• Citation: 179 P.2d 693,84 Okla.Crim. 135
• Parties: JENNINGS v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

179 P.2d 693

84 Okla.Crim. 135

JENNINGS v. STATE.

No. A-10705.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

April 16, 1947

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Lucius Babcock, Judge.

Chester Jennings was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Rule 7 of the Criminal Court of Appeals requires the brief of plaintiff in error to contain: '* * * a specification of errors relied upon specifically and positively setting out each error asserted and intended to be urged. * * *' A compliance with this rule is of great assistance to the court in consideration of the case on appeal.

2. Where one is charged with robbery with firearms (Tit. 21 O.S.1941 § 801) he may be convicted of robbery accomplished by means of force and fear as an included offense.

3. Where one commits the crime of robbery by means of force and fear, the fact that person robbed is knocked unconscious by an instrument in the hands of defendant and his billfold and a large sum of money is taken from his person while he is unconscious, does not reduce the crime to larceny from the person.

4. The entire record, including testimony of other witnesses, will be examined to ascertain that accomplice has been corroborated.

Owen F Renegar, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Warren H. Edwards, Co. Atty., of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

BAREFOOT Presiding Judge.

Defendant, Chester Jennings, was charged in the District Court of Oklahoma County by indictment with the crime of robbery with firearms; was tried, convicted of robbery as an included offense, and was sentenced by the court to serve a term of five years in the State Penitentiary, and has appealed.

The brief of defendant filed in this case does not comply with rule 7 of the court, which requires the brief of plaintiff in error to contain:

'* * * a specification of errors relied upon, specifically and particularly setting out each error asserted and intended to be urged. * * *'

A compliance with this rule is of great assistance to the court in consideration of the case on appeal.

Defendant in his brief states: 'We would first call the attention of the court to the insufficiency of the evidence and most respectfully insist that there is a total failure of proof that would warrant a conviction of this plaintiff in error of the crime charged.'

Under this contention, it is urged that there is no proof of the use of fire arms. Defendant was charged under Tit. 21 O.S.1941, § 801, which is as follows:

'Any person or persons who, with the use of any firearms or any other dangerous weapons, attempts to rob or robs any person or persons, or who robs or attempts to rob any place of business, residence or banking institution or any other place inhabited or attended by any person or persons at any time, either day or night, shall be guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction therefor, shall suffer punishment by death, or imprisonment, at hard labor, in the State Penitentiary, for a period of time of not less than five years, at the discretion of the Court, or the jury trying the same.'

It has been held by this court that 'robbery' and 'conjoint robbery' are included offenses under this statute. Patterson v. State, 78 Okl.Cr. 244, 147 P.2d 179; Winfield v. State, 18 Okl.Cr. 257, 191 P. 609.

The court so instructed the jury, and further instructed them that the evidence did not show the use of firearms, and that defendant could not be convicted of robbery with firearms, but only of the included offense of robbery accomplished by means of force or fear. The jury properly convicted the defendant of this offense.

It is next contended that the evidence was insufficient for the reason that it showed that only larceny from the person, and not robbery had been committed. The argument to support this contention is really unique. The evidence revealed that defendant and his co-defendand had seen the prosecuting...