Case ID: okla-crim_10/html/0596-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ARMSTRONG, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. F. LOCHE v. STATE.
    No. A-1987.
    Opinion Filed May 2, 1914.
    (140 Pac. 434.)
    1. APPEAL — Brief. When an appeal is taken from the judgment of a trial court to this court, it is the duty of counsel to brief the assignments of error relied upon for reversal.
    2. SAME — Oral Argument. All cases are assigned in this court for oral argument, and when counsel, .for any sufficient reason, are unable to file briefs, they are entitled to appear and orally argue the assignments of error relied upon.
    3. SAME — Motion to Affirm. When no appearance is made for oral argument, and no briefs are filed, a motion to affirm for failure to prosecute should be sustained, and the judgment of the trial court affirmed, in the absence of error depriving the accused of substantial rights under the law.
    
      Appeal from District Court, Garvin County; R. McMillan, Judge.
    
    J. F. Loche was convicted of embezzlement, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Blanton & Andrews, for plaintiff in error.
    
      C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   ARMSTRONG, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, J. F. Loche, was convicted at the September, 1912, term of the district court of Garvin county on a charge of embezzlement, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of one year. The appeal was filed on the 3d day of April, 1913, and the cause duly assigned for oral argument at the March term of this court. No appearance was made for oral argument, and no briefs have been filed on behalf of plaintiff in error. We have examined the transcript for fundamental error, and fail to find that the accused was deprived of any substantial right in the trial below.

The Attorney General has interposed a motion to affirm this judgment for a failure to properly prosecute the appeal. We are of opinion that the motion should be sustained; and it is so ordered. No fundamental error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Mandate ordered forthwith.

DOYLE and FURMAN, JJ., concur.