Sawyer v. State
| Decision Date | 16 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. A-13402,A-13402 |
| Citation | 395 P.2d 589 |
| Parties | Almon SAWYER, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
1. 'Persons under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor or of Drugs.
'(a) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in paragraph (c) of this section for any person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to drive, operate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle within this state.
* * *
* * *
'(c) Every person who is convicted of a violation of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor for the first offense and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of time not less than ten days nor more than one year, and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) * * *'. Title 47 O.S. § 11-902.
2. The Municipal Criminal Court of the City of Tulsa has concurrent jurisdiction with the State Courts of Tulsa County in misdemeanor violations of Title 47 O.S. § 11-902, arising within the corporate limits of the City of Tulsa.
3. In order to sustain a conviction for a violation of Title 47 O.S. § 11-902, it is incumbent that the record reflect the ordinance establishing the boundaries of the corporate limits of the City, either by way of introduction in evidence in the trial court in accordance with and as provided by Title 12 O.S.1951 § 493, or set forth verbatim by the Municipal Court or court trying the case de novo, during trial, or in its findings, in judgment rendered, or the wording must have been agreed to by the parties and stipulation entered in the record during trial. Where the record does not reflect said ordinance, the Court of Criminal Appeals will not take judicial notice of the same and the cause will be Reversed and Remanded.
Appeal from the Municipal Criminal Court of the City of Tulsa; James D. Bass, Judge.
Almon Sawyer was charged, tried and convicted of the offense of being in Actual Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle While Under The Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Robert J. Woolsey, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Charles Nesbitt, Atty. Gen., Hugh H. Collum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Almon Sawyer, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged by information, in the Municipal Criminal Court of the City of Tulsa, with the violation of Title 47 O.S. § 11-902; the same providing:
'(a) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in paragraph (c) of this section for any person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to drive, operate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle within this state.
* * *
* * *
'(c) Every person who is convicted of a violation of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor for the first offense and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of time not less than ten days nor more than one year, and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). * * *'
The jury was waived and he was tried before the Honorable James D. Bass, Judge of the Municipal Criminal Court of the City of Tulsa, who found him guilty and fixed his punishment at Ten (10) Days in the county jail and a $50.00 fine and costs.
From the Judgment and Sentence rendered therein a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
Although there are several assignments of error, it will only be necessary to consider defendant's first contention that this cause should be reversed for the reason that there was no competent evidence introduced tending to establish that the offense, for which the defendant stands convicted, was committed within the corporate limits of the City of Tulsa. The defendant argues that Officer Jim Snyder's testimony was the only evidence adduced on the trial relating to this issue and asserts that said testimony was improperly admitted and should not have been considered by the trial Judge. Testimony of Officer Jim Snyder, appearing at pages 56 and 57 of the casemade, was as follows:
* * *
* * *
'BY MR. WOOLSEY.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goomda v. City of Oklahoma City, A--17572
...Okl.Cr., 483 P.2d 1158; Simmons v. Oklahoma City, Okl.Cr., 429 P.2d 530; Goeppinger v. State, Okl.Cr., 414 P.2d 313; and Sawyer v. State, Okl.Cr., 395 P.2d 589. This Court has searched the record in vain for some indication of compliance with the above mentioned requirements. Any stipulatio......
-
Blanton v. City of Oklahoma City, M-77-81
...fixing limits. 12 Okl.St.Ann. § 493; 47 Okl.St.Ann. § 11-902." However, Goeppinger goes on to cite with approval Sawyer v. State, Okl.Cr., 395 P.2d 589 (1964), which held " . . . In order to sustain a conviction for a violation of Title 47 O.S. § 11-902, it is incumbent for the record to re......
-
Wormuth v. City of Tulsa, A--16357
...adduced at the trial was the arresting officer's testimony that the offense occurred in the City of Tulsa. In the case of Sawyer v. State, Okl.Cr., 395 P.2d 589, we '(T)he boundaries of the corporate limits of the City of Tulsa are fixed by the duly enacted ordinances of that City, and whil......
-
Whisenhunt v. State, A--14806
...in the instant case is that the prosecuting authorities failed to establish venue in conformity with the rule enunciated in Sawyer v. State, Okl.Cr., 395 P.2d 589, and cited with approval in Goeppinger v. State, Okl.Cr., 414 P.2d 313. In order to eliminate the unnecessary expense of new tri......