From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Layland v. State

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma
Oct 22, 1921
201 P. 266 (Okla. Crim. App. 1921)

Opinion

No. A-3669.

Opinion Filed October 22, 1921.

Appeal from County Court, Johnston County; C.M. Crowell, Judge.

Will Layland was convicted of the crime of pointing a weapon at another, and appeals. Appeal dismissed.

T.G. Ramsey and J.S. Ratliff, for plaintiff in error.

The Attorney General, for the State.


This is an attempted appeal from a judgment of conviction rendered against the defendant in the county court of Johnston county on the 6th day of August, 1919, wherein the defendant was convicted of the offense of pointing a weapon at another and sentenced to serve 3 months in the county jail and to pay a fine of $50.

The petition in error and case-made were not filed in this court until the 9th day of December, 1919, more than 120 days after the rendition of the judgment. Section 5991, Rev. Laws 1910, provides:

"In misdemeanor cases the appeal must be taken within sixty days after the judgment is rendered: Provided, however, that the trial court or judge may, for good cause shown, extend the time in which such appeal may be taken not exceeding sixty days."

Petition in error and case-made not having been filed in this court within the 120 days within which an appeal may be taken in misdemeanor cases, where proper extension of time is granted by the trial judge beyond the 60 days, it is apparent that this court has not acquired jurisdiction of this appeal and the same must be dismissed.

It is therefore ordered that the appeal be dismissed.


Summaries of

Layland v. State

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma
Oct 22, 1921
201 P. 266 (Okla. Crim. App. 1921)
Case details for

Layland v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILL LAYLAND v. STATE

Court:Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma

Date published: Oct 22, 1921

Citations

201 P. 266 (Okla. Crim. App. 1921)
201 P. 266

Citing Cases

In re McCue

Clearly, it is the duty of an attorney to remit money collected to his client, and a wilful omission to do so…

In re McCue

The facts shown, standing as they do without extenuation or excuse, justify a judgment of expulsion of T.F.…