From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riner v. State

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma
Aug 28, 1946
172 P.2d 345 (Okla. Crim. App. 1946)

Opinion

No. A-10615.

August 28, 1946.

(Syllabus.)

1. Appeal and Error — Review — Failure to File Brief or Argue — Affirmance. Under rule 9 of the Criminal Court of Appeals, where no appearance for argument is made and no brief is filed in support of the appeal, the court will examine the record, and if no fundamental error appears will affirm the judgment.

2. Same — Sufficiency of Evidence to Sustain Conviction for Contributing to Delinquency of Minor. Record examined and evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. No fundamental error is found.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Oklahoma County; Glen O. Morris, Judge.

Thad Riner was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Herbert K. Hyde and Lee Williams, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Warren H. Edwards, Co. Atty., of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.


The defendant, Thad Riner, was charged in the common pleas court of Oklahoma county with the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor; was tried, convicted, and sentenced to serve six months in the county jail and pay a fine of $200 and has appealed.

The case was set for oral argument on April 17, 1946, but no counsel appeared to argue the cause on behalf of defendant, and no brief has been filed.

In conformity with rule 9 of the rules of procedure of the Criminal Court of Appeals and the uniform decisions of the court, where no appearance for argument is made and no briefs are filed, the court will examine the record and if no fundamental error appears will affirm the judgment.

We have examined the record and find that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the defendant on the charge alleged against him. The evidence of the 15 year old prosecuting witness, corroborated by the policemen who saw the juvenile in the alley with the defendant, is sufficient, if believed by the jury, to support a conviction. We have found no fundamental error in the record.

The judgment of the common pleas court of Oklahoma county is accordingly affirmed.

BAREFOOT, J., concurs. DOYLE, J., not participating.


Summaries of

Riner v. State

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma
Aug 28, 1946
172 P.2d 345 (Okla. Crim. App. 1946)
Case details for

Riner v. State

Case Details

Full title:THAD RINER v. STATE

Court:Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma

Date published: Aug 28, 1946

Citations

172 P.2d 345 (Okla. Crim. App. 1946)
172 P.2d 345

Citing Cases

Standridge v. State

There was ample evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court. See Riner v.…

Riggs v. State

"Where the defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and no brief in support of the petition in error…