Sandefur v. State

Decision Date08 October 1969
Docket NumberNo. A--14413,A--14413
Citation461 P.2d 954
PartiesTravis SANDEFUR, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Appeal from the District Court of Stephens County; Arthur J. marmaduke, judge.

Plantiff in Error, Travis Sandefur, was tried and convicted for the offense of Larceny of Domestic Animals, and appeals. Judgement and sentence affirmed.

Gene M. Gardner, Duncan, for plaintiff in error.

G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., W. Howard O'Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.


BRETT, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff in error, Travis Sandefur, hereafter referred to as defendant as he appeared in the trial court, was tried in the district court of Stephens County for the crime of Larceny of a Domestic Animal; the jury returned a verdict of guilty and recommended the sentence be suspended. Judgment and sentence was imposed, without suspension, after the trial court overruled defendant's motion for new trial on February 28, 1967, after which he was transported to the state penitentiary.

At his trial, defendant announced ready for trial and entered pleas of 'not guilty' and 'not guilty by reason of insanity.' The trial court upon its own motion, over defendant's objections, ordered the defendant committed to Central State Hospital for mental examination.

Later, when defendant stood trial, the trial court's order for commitment to the state hospital, the order returning defendant to the court, and the letter from the State Psychiatrist were introduced into evidence, over defendant's objections. The crux of the State's Psychiatrist's letter recited: 'Psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Sandefur has been completed and he is not mentally ill according to the laws of the State of Oklahoma. He is able to distinguish between right and wrong and he could advise an attorney in his own defense.'

Defendant first complains that his constitutional rights were violated when by virtue of the letter, the doctors from the State Hospital were permitted to testify concerning their interrogation of him during their period of examination. In support of his contention he cites In re Lutker, Okl.Cr., 274 P.2d 786, in which he states the trial court erred in not providing defendant twenty-four hours notice of his confinement for mental observation, as provided in 43A O.S.Supp.1961 § 60. However, as the attorney general sets forth in his brief, that particular section of the statutes was repealed by the 1963 Session of the Legislature, and is now covered by 22 O.S.Supp. § 1171 et seq. With reference to defendant's contention concerning the twenty-four hour notice, we also observe that In re Lutker, supra, at page 792, provides in the Court's dictum the following:

'In most cases, the hearing probably could be instanter by agreement of the parties, but where there is no agreement it would appear that at least a 24-hour notice should be given and a copy of the written petition for commitment should be served on the accused * * *.'

But, this Court stated in the same opinion:

'We feel that the notice required in each case * * * should be governed by the facts of each particular case and should always be a reasonable one. * * *.'

In the case now being considered, we have the defendant on the one hand contending 'not guilty by reason of insanity,' while at the same instant contending that he should be allowed twenty-four hours notice, before a professional examination may be required. We fail to comprehend the consistency of defendant's position, and are of the opinion the trial court did not commit error when defendant was transported to the state hospital for mental observation under these circumstances. Defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
132 cases
  • Stidham v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • March 13, 1973
    ...the Court feels that the statement was not inherently or seriously prejudicial, this contention of error is without merit. Sandefur v. State, Okl.Cr., 461 P.2d 954. IX The eleventh proposition of error alleges the trial court erred in refusing defendant's requiested instruction defining acc......
  • Rushing v. State, F-81-206
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • January 24, 1984
    ...the appellant has failed to cite any authority to demonstrate the existence or nature of any error he now alleges. Sandefur v. State, 461 P.2d 954 (Okl.Cr.1969). The assignment of error is The twelfth assignment of error is that the trial court made disparaging remarks about his trial couns......
  • Russell v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • November 29, 1982
    ...failed to cite authority for his contention. We have held numerous times we will not search the books for counsel. Sandefur v. State, 461 P.2d 954 (Okl.Cr.1969). We note secondly that appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the failure to change venue. Absent a demonstr......
  • Daniels v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 13, 1976
    ...this Court will not search the books for authorities to support the mere assertion that the trial court has erred. See, Sandefur v. State, Okl.Cr., 461 P.2d 954 (1969); Battle v. State, Okl.Cr., 478 P.2d 1005 Secondly, even if the proffered testimony of Jack Purdie had been allowed, the sam......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT