Court Opinion

ID: 9552267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:07:40.414133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:00.033494
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITION FOR SECOND REHEARING
BRETT, Presiding Judge:
The above styled and numbered appeal was reconsidered on plaintiff in error’s petition for rehearing in which the evidence used to convict plaintiff in error is attacked and on which it is asked that the conviction be reversed; however, after reconsidering the record we are confronted with the rule stated in Hall v. State, Okl.Cr., 306 P.2d 361, 363:
“Where there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the jury’s verdict, the same will not be reversed, vacated, or set aside on appeal.” See also: Sadler v. State, 84 Okl.Cr. 97, 179 P.2d 479; and Dodson v. State, Okl.Cr., 284 P.2d 437.
In reviewing the evidence contained in the two volumes of the casemade, we are not overly impressed with the strength of it in the instant case. The chief witness testified that he would be assisted in obtaining a position as “trusty” in the state penitentiary, if he would testify against the plaintiff in error; and certain inconsistencies exist in the testimony of other witnesses produced by the prosecution, which lessened its value; and the numerous references to other stolen property even though denied were not supported by the prosecution, other than to leave certain implications. Therefore, in keeping with the ends of justice, and to provide for its proper administration, we find that the sentence imposed by the jury in this case wherein plaintiff in error was assessed with a fine of $500.00, court costs, and imprisonment in the county jail for one year, should be modified. Hence, under the authority of 22 O.S.1951, § 1066, the judgment and sentence imposed herein is modified to a fine of $500.00 and court costs, and as modified the judgment and sentence is affirmed.
NIX, J., concurs.