¶1(concurring).
¶2I especially concur on the basis of the rule set forth in Argo v. State, 88 Okl.Cr. 107, 200 P.2d 449, as quoted in the majority opinion. The record reflects the information was sufficient to enable the defendant to prepare for trial, for at no time did he complain that the information was so indefinite as to hamper him in preparation for trial. Moreover, it is apparent from the record that the defendant w.as not misled as to the identity of the offense, and under the record herewith presented he is adequately protected against any subsequent prosecution for the same crime.
¶3We can readily perceive quite a different situation where the plea was of guilty, as in the case of Chandler v. State, 96 Old. Cr. 344, 255 P.2d 299, where the matter of his being misled was open to speculation, but where, as herein, the entire record discloses the defendant was not misled, as disclosed by reasonable intendments, inferences and presumptions, which he himself indulged in favor of the information, the information should be sustained, and sheer technical objection thereto should not prevail.