Case Name: PETE MEANS v. STATE
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1914-04-18
Citations: 10 Okla. Crim. 581
Docket Number: No. A-2059
Parties: PETE MEANS v. STATE.
Judges: DOYLE, J., concurs. EURMAN, J., not participating.
Reporter: Oklahoma Criminal Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 581–582

Head Matter:
PETE MEANS v. STATE.
No. A-2059.
Opinion Filed April 18, 1914.
(139 Pac. 1155.)
1. APPEAL — Jurisdiction—-Notice of Appeal. Under the provisions of the statute law existing in this state at the time of appeal, a notice of appeal in due form had to be served on the clerk of the district court and the county attorney of the county in which the cause was tried, and proof thereof filed with the record on appeal, before this court could acquire jurisdiction to determine any questions raised on the merits.
2. SAME — Service. It is the duty of counsel on behalf of persons desiring to appeal to this court from a judgment of a trial court to see that notices of appeal are served and that proper proof of such service is included in the case-made or transcript.
3. SAME — Proof of Service —• Procedure. When a motion to dismiss an appeal is 'filed by the Attorney General on the ground that notices of appeal were not served as provided by law, it is the duty of counsel, instead of filing their statement to the effect that the same were served, to take immediate steps to correct the case-made, in the manner provided by law, to show that such notices'were properly served and to present the matter to this court in person and sécure an order protecting the rights of their clients.
4. SAME — Dismissal. When a motion to dismiss an appeal is filed on the ground that the notices of appeal were not served, and no action is taken by counsel to correct the record, although sufficient time has elapsed, and no appearance made when the cause is set for submission, there is no course left to this court but to sustain the motion and order the appeal dismissed.
Appeal from District Court, Carter County; S. H. Russell, Judge.
Pete Means was convicted of burglary, and appeals.
Dismissed.
Champion & Champion,, for plaintiff in error.
C. I. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
ARMSTRONG, P. J.
The plaintiff in error, Pete Means, was tried and convicted at the January, 1913, term of the district court of Carter county, on a charge of burglary, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary' for a period of two years. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no notices of appeal were served on the county attorney and the clerk of the .district court. Counsel for the plaintiff in error have filed a response to the motion, in which they allege that notices were served, but no proof of the service is attached, and no effort has been made to prsperly correct the case-made as the law provides. The motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 1913 ; the response thereto was filed on October 1, 1913. Many months have elapsed, yet no action has been taken looking to the correction of the record, or otherwise protecting the rights of the plaintiff in error, if any. The proper method for correction of a case-made is outlined in the statutes, and this court has repeatedly interpreted the same, so that there is no-reason apparent-why counsel have not taken some action in the premises, except-for the reason that the notices were not, as a matter of fact, served as the law requires. Instead of filing a response in the form of an unverified statement, counsel should have taken proper legal steps and secured the necessary orders from this court to meet the objections raised by the Attorney General.
Not having done so, there is no alternative left to us but to dismiss this appeal; and it is so ordered.
DOYLE, J., concurs. EURMAN, J., not participating.