Case ID: okla-crim_25/html/0162-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DOYLE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN GOODWIN v. STATE.
    No. A-4312.
    Opinion Filed Nov. 3, 1923.
    (219 Pac. 423.)
    (Syllabus.)
    1. Appeal and Error — Affirmance—Lack of Brief or Argument. In a felony case where the defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and no briefs are filed, or arguments presented, this court will make an examination of the record, including the information, the testimony, and the judgment, and if no error is apparent will affirm the case.
    2. Sufficiency of Evidence — Lack of Prejudicial Error. In a prosecution for the theft of an automobile, evidence held sufficient to sustain a conviction, and that no material error was committed on the trial.
    
      Appeal from District Court, Pontotoc County; J. W. Bolen, Judge.
    John Goodwin was convicted of stealing a Ford car, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Wimbish & Duncan, for plaintiff in error.
    The Attorney General, for the State.
   DOYLE, J.

In the information in this case John Goodwin and Eugene Augustus were jointly charged with stealing a Ford touring ear. A severance was granted, and upon his separate trial appellant was found guilty and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of five years. He has appealed from the judgment rendered on the verdict, but there has been no appearance in his behalf on his appeal.

The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the information; the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and that appellant was prejudiced by misconduct of the court, the jury, and county attorney during the trial of the ease.

A careful reading of the record has revealed nothing that supports or sustains the errors assigned, and convinces us that no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant was committed on the trial.

In cases of this kind we do not consider it the duty of this court, and it would subserve no useful purpose, to write an opinion specifically reviewing the errors assigned and our reasons for overruling them.

The information is sufficient, and the demurrer thereto was properly overruled. The testimony on the part of the state, if credited, as it was, was amply sufficient to sustain the conviction.

As shown by the record, appellant has been accorded a fair and impartial trial. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.