Case Name: HARRY STUBBLEFIELD v. STATE
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1919-12-03
Citations: 16 Okla. Crim. 655
Docket Number: No. A-3230
Parties: HARRY STUBBLEFIELD v. STATE.
Judges: . DOYLE, P. J., and MATSON, J., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Criminal Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 655–656

Head Matter:
HARRY STUBBLEFIELD v. STATE.
No. A-3230
Opinion Filed December 3, 1919.
Rehearing Denied January 12, 1920.
(185 Pac. 335.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Affirmance. Where a careful examination of the record shows that the evidence sufficiently supports the verdict of the jury, that no fundamental error intervened in the trial, and a motion for a new trial was not filed in the trial court, a judgment of conviction will be affirmed.
Appeal from District Court, Logan County; John P. Hicham, Judge.
Harry Stubblefield was convicted of larceny of a domestic animal, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
B. F. Garrett, for plaintiff in error.
S. P. Freeling, Atty. Gen., and W. C. Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Sitate.

Opinion:
ARMSTRONG, J.
The plaintiff in error, Harry Stubble-field, hereinafter called defendant, was informed against jointly with Lon Younger, for the larceny of a domestic animal, tried separately, found guilty, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary at McAlester for a term of two' years. To reverse the judgment rendered upon the verdict, he prosecuted this appeal.
We have carefully read and considered the entire record, and find that while the evidence, which we deem unnecessary to recite at length, is in conflict, we are of the opinion that there is evidence sufficient to reasonably support the verdict, that no fundamental errors occurred in the trial, and that the defendant did not move in the trial court for a new trial. In this state of the record there are no errors for this court to review.
Only those questions can be considered on appeal, unless fundamental error is involved, to which the attention of the trial court is directed by a motion in the trial court for a new trial.' The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
. DOYLE, P. J., and MATSON, J., concur.