Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

373 P.2d 1020

Harrison v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · decided 1962-07-25

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1964

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Title 22 Okl.St.Ann. § 1054, as amended in 1961, providing that an appeal in a felony case must be taken within three months after judgment is mandatory, and the Court of Criminal Appeals cannot entertain an appeal not perfected within such time.” (Citations Omitted)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Sides v. State

Relies on 78 Okla. Crim. 34 - Monzell v. State · 87 Okla. Crim. 423 - Application of Miller · Application of Cannon

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1962-07-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BUSSEY, Judge.

¶1This is an original proceeding in mandamus by Richard M. Harrison, petitioner,, an inmate of the State Penitentiary at Mc-Alester, in which he seeks an order of this-Court directing the district court of Tulsa County to prepare and furnish him a case-made of the proceedings in connection with the trial and conviction of the petitioner ini said court. Petitioner was tried and convicted of the Crime of Second Degree Burglary, after former conviction of a felony, and sentenced during a term of said court in 1961 to ten years in the State Penitentiary.

¶2 Title 22 Okl.St.Ann. § 1054, as-amended, provides that in felony cases an appeal must be taken within three months-after the judgment is rendered. This provision of the statute is mandatory, and must he strictly followed, and this court cannot entertain an appeal not perfected within such time. In the case of In re Application of Miller, 87 Okl.Cr. 423, 198 P.2d 755, this Court said:

“There is no statute in this state which permits this Court to issue an order requiring the d' strict court to-*1021furnish a transcript of casemade after the time has expired for taking an appeal in a criminal case. [See also, Monzell v. State, 78 Okl.Cr. 34, 143 P.2d 163; Application of Cannon, Okl.Cr., 360 P.2d 732].”

¶3Since the application herein is not timely made, and this Court would have no jurisdiction to consider an appeal if the same were lodged at this time, the application for Writ of Mandamus must be, and is hereby, denied.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
/373/p2d/1020 · .json · Public domain