Harrison v State

Harrison v State
1932 OK CR 175
14 P.2d 953
54 Okl.Cr. 95
Decided: 09/30/1932
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Larceny Conviction for Larceny of Truck Trailer Sustained. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty.

2. Same Sentence Reduced From Four to Two Years Imprisonment. For reasons for modifying judgment, see body of the opinion.

Appeal from District Court, Cleveland County; Tom P. Pace, Judge.

T.V. Harrison was convicted of grand larceny and he appeals. Judgment modified, and as modified, affirmed.

R.B. Garvin and Grim & Grim, for plaintiff in error.

J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVENPORT, P.J. The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the defendant, was sentenced to serve a term of four years in the penitentiary for grand larceny, and appeals. The testimony on behalf of the state is as follows:

J.R. Dulaney was engaged in operating a truck line between Oklahoma City, Ardmore, and other points. Ted Taylor was driving for Dulaney. On or about the 28th

Page 96

day of May, 1931, Taylor was making a trip, and a few miles south of the town of Noble, in Cleveland county, one wheel of a trailer broke, and the trailer was left by the side of the road.

The testimony further shows that later on the defendant had the trailer in the town of Norman and sold it to a man by the name of Tull. Both Dulaney and Taylor testify the trailer was taken without their knowledge or consent. Different witnesses testifying to the value of the trailer fix the value all the way from thirty-five to seventy-five dollars.

When the defendant was arrested, he asked the sheriff what he was arrested for, and was advised it was for taking the trailer, and the defendant stated that the old trailer was down on the highway:

"It had one wheel down, I did not think there was much to it, and I got a wheel and put on it and brought it here, and later sold it to Mr. Tull." The defendant did not testify.

The testimony is amply sufficient to sustain a conviction of grand larceny. Considering the value of the property stolen, it would seem that the punishment imposed upon the defendant is excessive and should be modified.