Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

407 P.2d 609

Collins v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided November 3, 1965

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · decided 1965-11-03

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““ ‘It is necessary for counsel for plaintiff in error not only to assert error, but to support his contentions by both argument and the citations of authorities. Where this is not done, and it is apparent that the defendant has been deprived of no fundamental rights, this court will not search the books for authorities to support the mere assertion that the trial court has erred.’ See: Collins v. State, Okl.Cr., 407 P.2d 609 .””

quoted by 19 later decisions, including Windham v. State, Washington v. State

Relies on Fryar v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1965-11-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 1980 · most notably Sandefur v. State (1969), Bryant v. State (1970)

32 state decisions

230196519701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge.

¶1 James D. Collins was charged, in the District Court of Canadian County with the offense of receiving stolen property after former conviction" of a felony, tie was tried by jury who found him guilty and fixed his punishment at seven (7) years imprisonment at the State Penitentiary at McAlester, and from the judgment and sentence pronounced in .accordance with *610 the verdict of the jury, a timely' appeal has been perfected to this Court.

¶2 On appeal defendant urges several assignments of error, none of which are supported by authorities. Under such circumstances we follow the rule that:

“It is necessary for counsel for plaintiff in error not only to assert error, but to support his contentions by both argument and the citation of authorities. Where this is not done, and it is apparent that the defendant has been deprived of no fundamental rights, this court will not search the books for authorities to support the mere assertion that the trial court has erred.” Fryar v. State, Okl.Cr.,'385 P.2d 818.

¶3 We have carefully examined the record and find that the evidence amply supports the verdict of the jury, and that the trial court fully and fairly instructed the jury, and that the record is free of fundamental error.

¶4 We are of the opinion, and therefore hold that the judgment and sentence appealed from should be, and the same is, hereby affirmed.

NIX and BRETT, TJ., concur.
/407/p2d/609 · .json · Public domain