Korpela v. State

The writ of error challenges only the finding of guilt and the sentence imposed on the charge of operating a vehicle without the owner’s consent.

The plaintiff in error contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish that he operated an automobile without the owner’s consent. The challenge to the judgment of conviction on that basis fails. Particularly as to the operating of the automobile involved, following the incident in the vacant lot, the evidence clearly establishes that such operation was without the owner’s consent. The plaintiff in error contends that he had an initial…