Love v. State
| Decision Date | 18 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. A-13435,A-13435 |
| Citation | 385 P.2d 512 |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
| Parties | Jack David LOVE, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals may be taken by a defendant as a matter of constitutional right from any judgment of conviction rendered against him in a court of record; but the statutes regulate the time and manner of exercising that right, and the appeal must be taken in the manner prescribed.
2. Attempted appeal taken on September 16, 1963 by defendant who was convicted of larceny of a motor vehicle after former conviction of a felony, and grand larceny after former conviction of a felony on March 23, 1963 was not timely 22 Okl.St.Ann. § 1054.
3. Statute fixing time within which appeal must be taken in a felony case is mandatory, and Court of Criminal Appeals cannot entertain an appeal not perfected within such time. 22 Okl.St.Ann. § 1054.
4. An appeal is perfected in the Court of Criminal Appeals by filing a petition in error with a duly certified case made attached to it, or by filing a petition in error with a duly certified transcript of the record attached, within the time provided by statute.
5. Where accused files in the Court of Criminal Appeals a petition in error, and neither casemade nor transcript of the proceedings is attached, there is nothing before the Court for adjudication.
6. Court of Criminal Appeals could not entertain an appeal not perfected within the time allowed by statute, and where neither casemade nor transcript of the record is attached to petition in error.
Attempted appeal from the District Court of Tillman County.
Jack David Love was convicted of the crimes of larceny of motor vehicle after former conviction of a felony, and grand larceny after former conviction of a felony, and attempts an appeal. Dismissed.
Jack David Love, pro. se.
Charles Nesbitt, Atty. Gen., Hugh H. Collum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, and who is now confined in the state penitentiary at McAlester, has filed herein, without the aid of counsel, what he styles a petition in error. He attaches neither case made nor transcript of the record.
It would appear from the instrument filed, that the defendant was convicted in the district court of Tillman County, Oklahoma on March 23, 1963 on a charge of larceny of a motor vehicle after former conviction of a felony, and sentenced to ten years imprisonment therefor; and that on the same day he was tried and convicted on a charge of grand larceny after former conviction of a felony, and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary.
It seems that the defendant was tried by a jury, and from his statement: 'Counsel for the defense strived for a legalistic formality and not a defense of substance, and therefore rendered plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scobie v. State of Oklahoma
...This does not mean, of course, that frivolous appeals may not be dismissed in the judgment of the court. 22 O.S.A. § 1051; Love v. State, 385 P.2d 512, (Okl.Cr. 1963); Farley v. United States, 354 U.S. 521, 77 S.Ct. 1371, 1 L.Ed.2d 1529; Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2......
-
Miller v. State of Oklahoma, 5749.
...This does not mean, of course, that frivolous appeals may not be dismissed in the judgment of the Court. 22 O.S.A. § 1051; Love v. State, 385 P.2d 512 (Okl.Cr. 1963); Farley v. United States, 354 U.S. 521, 77 S.Ct. 1371, 1 L.Ed.2d 1529; Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2 ......
-
Grubbs v. STATE OF OLKAHOMA
...is entitled to an appeal as a matter of right; that a Court may, however, dismiss a frivolous appeal; 22 O.S.A. § 1051; Love v. State, 385 P.2d 512 (Okl.Cr.1963). And that an indigent is entitled to the assistance of counsel on appeal. Douglas v. People of State of California, supra. The Co......
-
Love v. State
...had not been met, and this Court was denied jurisdiction to consider the appeal because it was not timely filed. See: Love v. State, Okl.Cr., 385 P.2d 512. Subsequent to that time however, the Legislature provided legislation permitting a post-conviction appeal when a defendant's constituti......