Case ID: okla-crim_22/html/0128-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DOYLE, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. H. SPANN v. STATE.
    No. A-3764.
    Opinion Filed Nov. 3, 1921.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 28, 1922.
    (210 Pac. 315.)
    (Syllabus.)
    1. Appeal and Error — Affirmance >Where no Brief and no Argument. In a felony case where the defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction, and no briefs are filed or argument presented, this court will examine the record, and if the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, and no error is apparent, will affirm the judgment.
    2. Larceny — Evidence to Support1 Conviction. In a prosecution for larceny of domestic animals, evidence held sufficient to support the verdict and judgment of conviction.
    Appeal from District Court, Johnston County; J. H. Line-baugh, Judge.
    
      J. H. Spann was convicted of larceny of live stock, and he; appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. S. Ratliff, for plaintiff in error.
    The Attorney General and E. L. Fulton, Asst. Atty. Gen.r for the State.
   DOYLE, P. J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of the; crime of larceny of live stock, and' in accordance with the verdict of the jury was sentenced to serve a term of two years ’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. He has appealed from said-judgment of conviction to this court, but there has been no appearance in his behalf on his appeal, and there is nothing before us but the petition in error and case-made.

The errors assigned are that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, and that the court erred in the admission and rejection of evidence to the prejudice of the defendant. In eases of this kind, we do not consider it the duty of this court to go into a careful examination of the evidence to determine whether or not the trial court erred in its rulings on the admission or rejection of evidence. However, we have given careful examination and consideration to the record in this case, and we find no error justifying a reversal. "We think the testimony, without any doubt, is ample to sustain the conviction. The judgment of the district court of Johnston Gounty is therefore affirmed.

MATSON and BESSEY, JJ., concur.