Case Name: JOHN BONNER v. STATE
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1910-11-22
Citations: 4 Okla. Crim. 639
Docket Number: No. A-369
Parties: JOHN BONNER v. STATE.
Judges: FURMAN, Presiding Judge, and RICHARDSON, Judge, concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Criminal Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
JOHN BONNER v. STATE.
No. A-369.
Opinion Filed November 22, 1910.
APPEAL — Review — Failure to File Briefs. Where a plaintiff in error appeals from a judgment of conviction and no briefs are filed, or oral argument made, this court will make an examination of the indictment, the instructions given and the judgment and sentence, and if no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error appears, the judgment will be affirmed-
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from District Court, Carter County; S. II. Bussell, Judge.
John Bonner was convicted of larceny and appeals.
Affirmed.
Champion ’& Champion, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DOYLE, Judge.
John Bonner was indicted in the district court of Carter county, at the November, 1908, term of the district court of Carter county, which indictment charged the larceny of two horses. On the 26th day of February, 1909, the- case was tried, and the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty as charged, and assessed his punishment at four years in the penitentiary. Motion for new trial having been filed, the samé was on March 1,-1909, overruled, and judgment was rendered by the court in accordance with the verdict, from which judgment an appeal was properly perfected by filing in this court on October 15, 1909, a petition in error with case-made attached, and proof of service of notices of appeal.
On March 26, 1910, the Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. At the May, 1910, term, thirty days' additional time was granted to file briefs. No brief has been filed and no appearance made on behalf of plaintiff in error, when the case was called for oral argument. On August 29, 1910, the Attorney General filed a motion to affirm for want of proseeu tion, which motion has not been resisted. Upon this condition of the record we do not consider it the duty of this court to go into a careful examination of the record; however, we have examined the indictment, the instructions of the court, and the judgment and sentence, and we have discovered no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of plaintiff in error.
The motion to affirm will therefore be sustained, and the judgment of the district court of Carter county is in all things affirmed. The mandate of this court is ordered issued directing the district court of Carter county to cause the judgment and sentence to be enforced.
FURMAN, Presiding Judge, and RICHARDSON, Judge, concur.