Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

373 P.2d 83

Hill v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · decided 1962-06-27

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1967

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““1. Title 22, O.S.A. § 1054, providing that an appeal in a felony case must be taken within six (6) 'months after judgment, is mandatory, and the Court of Criminal Appeals cannot entertain an appeal not perfected within such time. 2. An application for writ of mandamus requiring a District Court to furnish a casemade where judgment and sentence in a felony case was entered more than six (6) months prior to filing of such application will be denied. 3. Court of Criminal Appeals will not issue order directing that casemade or transcript be prepared at expense of county where the application for such casemade or transcript is filed after the expiration of the time in which an appeal may be taken.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Daniels v. District Court of Oklahoma County, Richmond v. District Court of Oklahoma County

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 1962-06-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NIX, Presiding Judge.

¶1This is an original proceeding in mandamus by Isaac J. Hill, an inmate of the State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, in which he seeks an order of this Court directing the District Court of Oklahoma County to prepare and furnish him with a casemade of the proceedings in connection with the trial and conviction of the petitioner in said court in Case No. 16258.

¶2Petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced by said Court for the crime of robbery with firearms, and was sentenced to serve a term of ninety-nine (99) years in the State Penitentiary at McAlester, where he is presently incarcerated.

¶3Title 22 O.S.A. § 1054 provides that an appeal in felony cases must be taken within six (6) months after judgement is rendered. (This six months provision has since been amended to three months.) This provision of the statute is mandatory and must be 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 premits this Court to issue an order requiring the district court to furnish 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.”

¶4Since 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 is hereby denied.

BRETT and BUSSEY, JJ., concur.
/373/p2d/83 · .json · Public domain