Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

485 P.2d 479

Bly v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided May 12, 1971

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · decided 1971-05-12

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1975

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Charles H. Hedrick, District Attorney of Payne County, State of Oklahoma, under and virtue of the authority vested in him as District Attorney, gives this Honorable Court to know and be informed in the name and by the authority of the State of Oklahoma, at the January, 1973, term of said court, that at and in the County of Payne and the State of Oklahoma, on the 29th day of March, 1973, ROY ELDON NEAL and PAUL EVERETT NEAL, while acting together and conjointly, did commit the crime of BURGLARY IN THE SECOND DEGREE in the following form and fashion, to-wit: that is to say that the said defendants, ROY ELDON NEAL and PAUL EVERETT NEAL, while acting together and conjointly, then and there being, did willfully, wrongfully, unlawfully and feloniously, in the day time, break and forcibly open a certain coin-operated washing machine, to-wit: a Whirlpool washer, Model No. OTA2000G-4, Serial No. 002204948, containing money, by inserting a spurious, counterfeit key into the locking mechanism of the coin box of said machine, being located at 1815 North Boomer Road, City, of .Stillwater, Payne County, Oklahoma, said machine being the east ern-most machine located on the north wall of the north compex of Phase III, 40 North Apartments, at said address, and in the possession of Gilford E. Duggan, with the willful and felonious intent to steal money, in Violation of Title 21, OSA, Section 1435, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and di”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Neal v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1971-05-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

¶1Roy Douglas Bly, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted of nine offenses of Burglary in the Second Degree, in the District Court of Oklahoma County; his punishment was fixed at two years imprisonment in each case, to run concurrently, and from said judgments and sentences, timely appeals have been perfected to this Court, which are consolidated in this opinion.

¶2Since the single issue determinative of these appeals concerns the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not deem it necessary to recite the facts of the case; suffice it to say, in the trial of each of the nine cases, the serial numbers of the dryers and washers alleged to have been burglarized, were not proven. The Attorney General confesses error, and we accordingly Reverse And Remand For A New Trial the judgments and sentences rendered in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Cases Nos. CRF-69-2651; CRF-69-2652; CRF-69-2653; CRF-69-2654; CRF-69-2655; CRF-69-2656; CRF-69-2657; CRF-69-2658; and CRF-69-2659.

¶3The Clerk of this Court is directed to file a copy of this opinion in each of the Court of Criminal Appeals Nos. A-16,549; A-16,550; A-16,551; A-16,552; A-16,553; A-16,554; A-16,555; A-16,556; and A-16,557.

NIX, J., concurs.
/485/p2d/479 · .json · Public domain