Bly v. State

Full title: ROY DOUGLAS BLY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DEFENDANT…

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Date published: May 12, 1971

485 P.2d 479 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971)

1971 OK CR 213

Opinion

Nos. A-16549 — A-16557.

May 12, 1971.

Appeals from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Harry L.S. Halley, Judge.

Roy douglas Bly was convicted of nine offenses of Burglary in the Second Degree; his punishment was fixed at two years imprisonment in each case, to run concurrently, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trials.

Don Anderson, Public Defender, for plaintiff in error.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Paul Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Roy Douglas Bly, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted of nine offenses of Burglary in the Second Degree, in the District Court of Oklahoma County; his punishment was fixed at two years imprisonment in each case, to run concurrently, and from said judgments and sentences, timely appeals have been perfected to this Court, which are consolidated in this opinion.

Since the single issue determinative of these appeals concerns the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not deem it necessary to recite the facts of the case; suffice it to say, in the trial of each of the nine cases, the serial numbers of the dryers and washers alleged to have been burglarized, were not proven. The Attorney General confesses error, and we accordingly Reverse And Remand For A New Trial the judgments and sentences rendered in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Cases Nos. CRF-69-2651; CRF-69-2652; CRF-69-2653; CRF-69-2654; CRF-69-2655; CRF-69-2656; CRF-69-2657; CRF-69-2658; and CRF-69-2659.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to file a copy of this opinion in each of the Court of Criminal Appeals Nos. A-16,549; A-16,550; A-16,551; A-16,552; A-16,553; A-16,554; A-16,555; A-16,556; and A-16,557.

NIX, J., concurs.

[5] BRETT, Judge (specially concurring):

I agree that these cases should be reversed and remanded for new trials; and also, notwithstanding the fact that defendant did not raise the question on his appeal, I believe these cases should be consolidated into one Information with separate counts, as authorized in 22 O.S. 1961 § 404[ 22-404]. The different coin-operated laundry machines were located in the same laundry; and defendant's alleged burglary of those machines occurred at the same time and place.