Hicks v State

Annotate this Case

Hicks v State
1923 OK CR 153
215 P. 794
24 Okl.Cr. 43
Decided: 06/14/1923
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

Appeal and Error Dismissal Acceptance of Parole.

Appeal from District Court, Beckham County; T.P. Clay, Judge.

Pearl Hicks was convicted of two offenses, and he appeals. Appeals dismissed, and causes remanded.

M.L. Minton and Tracy & Minton, for plaintiff in error.

DOYLE, J. In the information in this case Pearl Hicks was charged with obtaining from one Geo. A. Feland a promissory note for $200, executed by said Pearl Hicks and one A.L. Hicks, by giving said Feland a check in payment of said note. Upon his trial the jury found him guilty and assessed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of four years. On October 18, 1922, the court rendered judgment on the verdict. An appeal was taken by filing in this court on April 17, 1923, a petition in error with case-made.

In the information in the other case Pearl Hicks was charged with removing three mares from Beckham county with intent to defraud one Geo. A. Feland, mortgagee and holder of a chattel mortgage executed on said personal property, executed by Pearl Hicks in favor of the said Geo. A. Feland. Upon his trial he was found guilty, but the jury failed to agree as to his punishment. On October 25, 1922, the court rendered judgment on the verdict and sentenced the defendant to imprisonment

Page 44

in the penitentiary for the term of one year. From the judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court on April 23, 1923, a petition in error with case-made.

Pending the determination of said appeals, counsel of record for plaintiff in error filed motions to dismiss these appeals, for the reason that on the 11th day of June, 1923, paroles were granted the plaintiff in error in each of the above entitled and numbered causes by the Governor, and the same were accepted by plaintiff in error.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.