
    EARL STANLEY et al. v. STATE.
    No. A-4345.
    Opinion Filed Oct. 6, 1924.
    (228 Pac. 1113.)
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Permission to File Brief out of Time Refused, Where Opinion Written Affirming Cause as to Coappellant. Where the appeal has been pending over two years, and no brief is filed in behalf of these appellants before final submission of the cause, permission to file a brief six months thereafter will be refused, where the record has been examined and an opinion written affirming the cause as to a coappel-lant in whose behalf a brief was timely filed and who was jointly tried with these appellants.
    Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Redmond S. Cole, Judge.
    Earl Stanley and another were convicted of burglary in the second degree and sentenced to serve a term of seven years each in the penitentiary, and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Thompson & Smith and C. B. Roekwood, for plaintiffs in error.
    George F. Short, Atty. Gen., and N. W.. Gore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MATSON, P. J.

Earl Stanley and W. A. Warren were jointly charged together with one Dan Mara, by information filed in the district court of Tulsa, county, with the crime of burglary in the second degree alleged to have been committed on the 19th day of January, 1922, by breaking and entering the store building of one W. R. Jeffries, located in the town of Glenpool, Okla., and stealing therefrom certain goods, wares, and merchandise belonging to the said Jeffries. Upon a joint trial the defendants .were found guilty as charged and their punishment fixed as above stated.

The appeal was filed in this court on May 20, 1922, and the cause was finally submitted on the 6th day of November. 1928. The eodefendant Dan Mara joined with these plaintiffs in error in prosecuting this appeal, and a brief was filed in support of his appeal and an opinion rendered by this court, filed February 6, 1924, affirming the judgment as to the said Dan Mara. No brief has been filed in' behalf of either of these plaintiffs in error. More than six months after this cause was finally submitted counsel for the plaintiff in error Stanley requested permission of this court to file a brief in his behalf. This request was denied because the court was familiar with the case, having rendered an opinion therein as to the plaintiff in error Dan Mara.

The case against Stanley is stronger than that against either Mara or Warren, and the summary of the evidence set out in the opinion in Mara v. State, 26 Okla. Cr. 156, 223 Pac. 204, is sufficient to answer the purposes of this opinion, and is here referred to and made a part hereof. After an examination of the entire record, it is the opinion of this court that the evidence against each of these plaintiffs in error is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment, and that no reversible error occurred during the progress of the trial.

The judgments therefore as to Earl Stanley and W. A. Warren are accordingly affirmed. Mandates forthwith.

BESSEY and DOYLE, JJ., concur.  