Wietelmann v. State, 133 P. 249 (Okla. Crim. App. 1913). · Go Syfert
Wietelmann v. State, 133 P. 249 (Okla. Crim. App. 1913). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Salathiel (2×)
Okla. Crim. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Jones v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 646 , 133 P. 249, 251 (1913)(second offense of violating prohibitory act could be charged as felony based on prior conviction sustained before effective date of enhanced penalty for repeat offenses) (quoting Ex Porte Gutierrez, 45 Cal. 429 (Cal.1873) (finding provision making second offense of petit larceny a felony is not ex post facto, as applied to one who committed the first offense prior to effective date of amendment)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
F. Wietelmann
v.
State.
No. A-1737..
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
Jul 12, 1913.
133 P. 249
Edward A. Wagener, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the State.
PER CURIAM..
Published
[*639] PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted under an information which charged the unlawful selling of intoxicating liquor, and on the 19th day of January, 1912, he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict of the jury to be confined for thirty days in the county jail and pay a fine of fifty dollars. No brief has been filed or oral argument made in behalf of the defendant. When the cause was called for final submission the Attorney General for this reason moved to affirm. The motion to affirm is sustained and the cause remanded with direction to enforce the judgment and sentence.