Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

CHARLEY SMITH v. STATE.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

APPEAL — Affirmance. When a petition in error and case-made are filed in this court, it is the duty of counsel to prepare and file briefs or appear and orally argue any assignments of error relied upon for reversal. When this is not done, the appeal is treated as abandoned, and in the absence of fundamental error, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed for want of prosecution.

ARMSTRONG, P.J.

The plaintiff in error, Charley Smith, was convicted at the April, 1911, term of the district court of Le Flore county on a charge of larceny of domestic animals, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of three years. The appeal was perfected in this court on the 21st day of October, 1911. The petition in error points out no specific ground for reversal, but generally alleges error in the overruling of the motion for new trial and in arrest of judgment. No briefs have been filed by counsel on behalf of the plaintiff in error, and no appearance made for oral argument. We have examined the record, and find that no constitutional right was denied the accused.

The judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.

DOYLE and FURMAN, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SMITH v. STATE
(Mar 8, 1913)