Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

*
OFFICE OFTHE ATTORNEYGE~ERALOFTEXAG
AUGTIN
Honorable Z&nor Garrikn, Jr., liireator
Departmat OS Publfo Safety
CacipXabry
AU8tin) Tern0
D86r sirt
r oi Texa8.l.n
u, ax14~obtained
at lQ4rl4go .S.
rn aoarplalnt before a
3aw8 of tha8 atate, wl8h
ination of zwjury".
ea8e the eaid 'Eldridge
war 02 Kaaea8 raqutmteb
id @arty to be arrertod
oroaaant ottloerti of Kan8a8.
y!e attornopd, the Cavoraor of
earlag in hi8 offioe oa the
, at #hiah hearing the eal4
$y appear@ and beatif~e4~
.warrant,biroate tiaall offioara of Tams, or4dnq: that
the aal4 Prlae be armsted an4 4~elivere48a bho agent of
the Ckmrnor or Kansae.
several hours prior to the hol4Ing oi the csxtra-
dltlon hearfng berore the Uo~ernoc, an4 While tho said
245
Eonorfablo
Lea Bra&y - page 2
ooetioe @,ses.oo. Ithea al~o~i~tallad a vault door
at 8 aoet of $600.00,Venitisn bliss& at a ooet of
$71.20 ax448 Beon oign at the entrbm8e of tho fmmtomere*
vault at a ooat of $20,00. Xheee iftma have boen a&led
to the wet or the btiW.ng, didag 8 tat& of $19,lge.I$!,
at which iigurs the bpiwDg ie Oarried on the books ot
.tlle baa.Tbiebaakhae irmreatsdinmwable iirfureso
sum equal to ls$ oi its oapltnl 8nd 8urpltus.
*The bsnk has faken the position that the but%t-&n 610
f'ix8uresabwo mentiansdha~beivn ~n6trrrofsdonbrlok
valle, aunstitutea part of the bu%l&.ag .ud, tberefore``
sre``tlY.xtureerithinthe paiw ot&tiolb8~ abwe
aJenti0ne4.The wmo perbalm Lo taken rrilih ref~rsnoe to
the vault doer, Ve~%tl.aublials agl 8esa dgb
. -255
!lonorable:lozxer
Carrlson, Jr., Director, ?aCe 3
?he.Dlstrlct Ju4~3, the Xononbls 8. .3. CePr, issue4 a writ
or habaam Corpus lzue4latolyin words as followa:
,
"TX sl't.TTs
OF TI%S.
"To T. L. Poole, b%eriff or La Salle County, Tesai), .
or any other Peace Ortlcer la aal State into .:
whose hands thle rrlt say be plaoodg Greetlngr
-our am hereby 0omtau4e4 to produce betore
z~e at Jourdantoa in the County of htascosa, State -
of Texas, on the 26th day at Waroh, A. D. 1941, at
10 0'01~0lcA. I&, the~person or 2. 9. Prloe wham,
it 1s alleged le how illegally roatrainad ot his' .., ;?‘..
liberty, Fhen an4 where Cause zuustbe shown why
the iraljl5% Prloe is he&Yin custody or restr&-,
e4 or-Ns ~llberty. ,'. ,_ _.:. : <:
;;-``~'
.3:``
--:
r..:$ :.
.I :,:i .*.,...,
.I ,.(
ri'
'.:
~Ierein rati not an4 411sraturn make herdoi.~' i1':_"'
After said writ of habeas o&pus was issue4 ln s&4 case,
the exfm4ltlon hearing was heldduring the arternooa oi
the sa%e day atim&ntloned above.’ The 6~14 Xldrldge 9.
IMae use notunder arrset OF in the austady.ot anyone at ..
the tias the writ was issued-or 4urin~ the extrac$tioa-
hcarlng, an4 he attended t+ hssrlW voluntsrlly.
Zme4lately after the extradition heating ~ttie
Covernor issued his exocutlva,warraatior the arrest of the
said Price, referred to above; but~betore the same could bo
executed, au4 xlthln a,rew mlriut++aarter said ~hehring,the
said Priae ati taken into custody near the Goveraor*s oftice
in the corridor& of the State Cap$tol'Sull4lng'byXr. T. ff.
kale, Sherlri,orLa Ealle county, an4 s&l4 sherirr took.ths
said l'Ylco to Jourdanton, Atascosa'couutp,batore the Eon.
S:S. Cam, who proaided over the District Courts in both
La Salle an4 Atascosa counties as Judge of the 81st fudi-
Cial D~strlot, an4 Judge Carr released the said Price on .
bon4 by virtue or an order as followfar
r
5!onorable Komer Garrison, Jr., Direotor, Fage 4
u?x Parts; : ID TX DISTRXCT CWRT,
;-'.
s. Pmcz" t LA SALLF CGEm, T7XA3
"The Sheriff of La Salle County, Texas, hav-
& produoed the body of Z. S. Prioe, before the
Dlatrlot Court nt Jourdantoa,Taxas, ln pursnanoe’
of a %lt of Habeas Corpus heretofore issued by
this Court, and the Court not haying suttioient
tine to hear said grit on its merits, the said
hear& is postponed untfl April Zlth, A. I).,
1943, at lOtO o*olo0k A. M., In the Distriot
Court Room at Cotulla, La Salle County, Texas,
AU&:
*The said Z. S. Prioe is hereby dlkoted to *I,,-,
appear before the said Court a% said tlae.. ,. ":~
'*In,theneantima the raid L 5..Moe will '1 I,'~,.
'-
berelaaaed rrom the custody of the Sheriff of La;.'.::,.;
Selle.County,Texau, upon said Price gldng bond
ror his appearanoe as afore stated in the mm .of~
oiYE mXzW~ Dollars, to be approved by the .Sherlff
0r La Salle County, Texas.
"Dated thle 27th day of Harsh, A. ,D.,1941. i"~i"
c,
-3. B. CAB
JuDG~,-81st JUDICIAL
DISTi1ICTOP TZQW'
Xo writ of habeas o&w in this ease ww aerred
on anybody, exoept that one was served on the said T..X.
the petition for Prritof hsbeas oorpus
Foole the laortiln~
was filed, and that servloa was betors the said Price was
in custody 0r anyone. 30 writ or prooees was ever servsd
on the Departmentof Publio Safety or any member or agent
thoreof, or on any mmber of the Attorney General's Depart-
mwt, or on any mnsa8 orrloer. htter the said Prloe was
released on bond by Judge S. B. Carr, the Judge~wrote a
letter to the Comty Attorney of Johnson County, Kansa8.
ths oounty in whloh the said Prioe was obarged with perjurg
and subordinationof perjury, and the YTtldge also advised sn
Assistant Attmney General of Texas by long dlstanoe t&s-
phone oonvereationthat a habeas oo~us hearing wuld be
257
Eonorable Ikmr Carxlson, Jr,, Dlreotor, PaBe ,5
held on April 21, 1941. A hear& was held on that date In
?‘loresiIlle,#llson County, *&Ioh Is also In Judge Cam’s
distrIct,‘andno one appeared bofore the oourt exoept Sheriff
T. !!.Poole and the said Jdrfdge 5. FrIoe, end no testimony
of my kind was heard by the court or orrereilby auyono,
but tho oourt entered au orclex as followsr
.
?xo. 1159. ,,
,,
.,
“z-xPsrte: t ID TV DISTRICT COin2T
9. s. Fxloe t OP LA SALLE .QQVRlT,TYXAS
“Oa this the 2lst .day of ‘A#rIX., A. I’)., 194.l. .
came on to be oonsidered by the Court the above
styled a99lIoatloo for .\rrit of ‘HabeasCoqms, : .: ;
filed heroin on the :26th. tiw.of%roh, .A.. D., 19.Q. ;:j-
end la 9urruanoe to whIoh a ,&It of Ertbeaa Xorpu.5 .+-
wed med by.this ~Coart ‘%n.,the.27th day .,o?&rob,:+
A. D., 19&l, and the &aid::&,S; Prl’ae, “having.;bssn.+j
allowed to give bonei: titif.a hi?wIzwaould``be.:helU&::
on the said -it of Ziabeaa’/cOrpus;~3ina it-apgearIn&~i.:
to the Court that' thB.EWmG authorItle8s3mvobean:+
properly and duly nOtIfI’ed .ot this hear& and the ..: i
sottimg thorsof oa this, .,
date,;:
and ths Oourt.hating-.: ;
been aotIfIed frill rrrIi&ig'%&it:- theySwould:.-note9poaq;:
and the Attorney”Cene``d’~oiflae $n’YUstIa&Tq.~$$~Y
has been Slven due uOtlo0 of this ‘hemliigand .of.:. .,.L-,‘.
‘the setting, and ,thehsslstant Attorney Geuerel,
CeoIl Dotsh, having advised the Court that his De-
partment wazkhot Ihtere6ted In the writ 0r Haboas,
Corpus hearing, and that ‘theyuould not be present,
aud as a matter of faot were not preset, IIeIehsr
was any representtatIY0 fron.Kanaae preseat, ana the
Court thereupon prooeedad to hear all tcstImony
Iotroduoedby the apglioant,’ Inoladlng hIe WitnOSS&
and having also fully aou8Idsred the law apgplioable
to said writ or Dabeas Corpus the Court Is of the
opinion that said applfoant, 2. S. FrIoe, should
and ought to be by tho Court‘fully disahaxged under
said urlt 0r I?abeasCorpus and that the said E. 6.
iMoe should not rurther be molested, harxaased, OX
arrested by T. 3, mole, Sheriff of La %ille CountP,
ooTgx;p Departnent or ?ublIo safety of the State
or any member thereof, the i'flghuay ZWXOl,
or by a& other peaoe oftlaer In the State ot Texas,
In oonaeotlon~ with, or by virtue of oertain extra-
. r
Honorable Eoaar Garrison, Jr., Dirrotor, Page 6
dition proceadi~a had baiors the Commor of
Texas on the 26th day of ‘Laroh,A. D., 19f.1,or
by virtue of eny othor extrndltioawarrant in
conn%tion therewith. ,
“It is therefors C~DLZ?~D,A3JUDG~D and
DZCDZD by the Court that the applioant, 2. s.
irice, be, and he is hereby fully '~tsohargsd
by the Court under and by virtue of the writ
or Ihbsas Corpus growing out oi extradition
proooedingsheretorore had bsrore the Coveraor
or Texas on the 26th day of L?aroh,C. D., 194l,
aad the said T:.S. Prioe is hereby fully dis-
oharged troa and under the warrant of arrest ‘.
issued by the Covernor or Texas on the aroresald
date, in pursuanoe to suoh extradition prooesd-~:
in&r, and every peaoa ofrioer In the State’of ^ ~.
Texas is by.virtue or this Order direoted and
wsrnof.not~tomolest, harmas, or arrest the: a'.'
aald 5. 5..Prioe, under any extraditionwarrant'
issued in ccumsotlon~wlththe said extradition
proceedingshad before the Covernor~a? Texas
on the arorecaid date, or by virtue of.any other
extraditionwarrant; or,any other.warrtqt iiisued‘~’”
in oonaeotiontherewith.
“S. B. Cam L’
J-UDG~,Rlfz JmICIAL
DI:;%GC’J!.OF T ‘X4S”
-‘i&wic now proaeod‘to oonslder the law in the
l&.ht or the above recta, and to dotemine whether or not
your.authorltyto arrest ZldridtieS, Priae on the Covernor’s
warrant,has boen arreoted by said order.
3%.do not believe that the k&boas OOrpU8 pro-
coedlnC in question arieats your righghtand duty to arrest
Zldridge S. ~rioa under the authority of the Govornor*s
extradltion warrant. Cur conoluslonis based on two WOUWIS:
First, the habeas oorpus proceeding was void because the
relator, Xldrld$e 5, 2riae, was not under custody or re-
straint when the petition was presented to the oourt and the
vmit oi habeas oorpus Issued, although he -was taken into
custody later; and, Second, the question of the validity of
the Covernor*s extraditionwarrant was dot presented in the
habeas oorpus hearin@ and Is tharerore not ree judlOata
.
: - e .. .._.
.
259
Honorable RotterGarrlgon, Jr., Director, saga 7
la'tio-faras oonaerns persons who were not served with a
writ or wore.not lltl@nts la ssld proaeeding.
78 wfll quote the Artlolss lc the Code of Cria-
lnal Frooeduro of Texas, vrhiahwvobelieve have 80."``
bearing:
on thla question. Artlole 113, C. C. F., says:
“The writ at habeao oorpus 1s the rzaedy
to be used when anyperson is restrained in
his liberty. It 18 an order iSStl8dby a oourt
or judge or oompetenb jurisdiation,dlreoted
to any one having a person in his ouetodp, or
under hi8 restraint, oozmandinghis to produoe
suoh perso& at a time and.plaoe mm&I In the
writ, and show why he fs held In oustody or
undpr reftrgiat.m j
., :I.
;'I:
.Artlole122, c. C.~P., mySS /: '5
c:. ~. :
*';;hen
applioation'hasbeen made to a judge :
'under the ciroumstanoeeset ,forthin the tuo
preoeding ar@lalbs; he shall appoint s~time when :
he af3.lexaxlne the oaase or.the appllaant,,and . :
isrue the Irrltreturnable at that tige, in the
county where the ol'fenseia ohargsd in the in-
Q~otaent,or'~niormationto have bsen oomnitted.
Hs shall also epeaify solse'plaoein the county
rinerehe will hear the-applioatlon."'
Artloln 127, C. C. P., says: ..,
*The writ'ot habeas oorpas's.hallbe granted
: without delay by the fudge 02'aourt reoeivim the
petition, unless it bo manliest frox the petition
itself, or am6 documents annexad to it, that the
party.18 entitled to 20 rcliet whatever."
Article 133, S. C. P., says!
"The words, 'aohf'inedq,limprlsoned*, 'in
custody*, *aonrlnem*nt*,*inprisnhxcat,*refer,
not only to the actual, corporeal and forcible
.
Eomer Omrrison, Jr.,
iion~rab1.s Dlreotor, Pqs 8
IWaorableBoaer 5arrlimn. Jr., Director, PiWe 9
TIefore a party oan resort to the writ
o? habeas oorpus, he must be omfined In jail
or restrainedof hi'6liberty. . .('
In the owe of'26 part& banter, 116 Tex. 39, 285 5. F.'.
255, the Zuprsxe Court of Texas ealdr
98. .It Is a well-establishedprinolplm
or law*tl;at, it oh8 la entitled to the nit
of h&bees oorpua, he mat be aetually rcstnln-
ed OS his llbsrtp, or at leaat there must bo
acme leg&l restralst other than nmre noral
su6slon. . .u
The mme holdlug wae aleo made in the rcoeot ease of XX
parke Dumcw, 137 Tex. 0rl.m.8. 5%. 132 3. R. (24) 8S3.
We have bean unable to find a $kxas appsllato oourt oam8
in whioh the rshtm me at liberty when the writ of
habeas oarpus was lsaued ln~hla behalf and t&a takeu
into otm0dyprior t0 rg0 h~a+ h ali 0r th0 T-S
cm008 OIIthis questlen’thatwe have foun4, the relator
was at liberty at the tlqo of the hoarlng in the trial
oourt or at the the of the hearm~ in the rppillate
oourt; but, the lsniyage of the $'exmideolel~e ih4loat.e
Wt the writ oanuot le@.ly lsrue If the relator is at
liberty at the time of lumaaoe, an4 we dre tunable to
see how hla aabssquent arrsst QW ralldatr the writ amt
the proueed%ngrr thorwader. Iatho oaO4 of In re Bz74on,
9 IL X. 647, &f iLo. 691, M orl&a6l habsae aorpus
ooedlng deoided by the Supreme.Courhof New %exiao, tE
relator ma not under ouato4y or Peetralntwhen the
potltlon for the writ la his behalf wao tlLed, but rice
to the hearlng he was,bakdj into ouetody by the she.? 1fi
wko ma alleged to hare him undax 6rPest; and ths oourt
held that he was not entitle4 to a.aor4ar of release, W%d
in it4 oplnlon saltlt
I. . . To invoke the aetlan of this oourt,
there lquetbe a ~ubi&.nbitL oaae, and.there
oamot be with the petitionerat largn,,,in the
en;loymentof his liberty, at the @ate when the
petltloilwss riled. . .-
r..’2fi2 *
ITonorableEozaerGarrIson, Jr., Xreotor, Page 10
In this ease no avidanoe was introduoea in the
poarlng at Flaresvllle before the Honorable S. 3. Cam,
and we am unable to see box he oould pass on tke validity
c? tha CoYeraor*s ertradltfotc varmint, evea though he
purports in hIrie @.tGnent to adjudloate that Issue. 1%
say be that fi the taots oonosrnlng the validity or the
~o~srnoz~awarrant had been presented In that hearing ao
that the Zudge aould have passed on ‘thenhis ludgmnt
would have been res udloata on thd iseues raised thereby
a23to e+er90ne,inolua'Fisons nob parties to the pro-
oew, but no erldenaewas lntroduaed aad ao tlemberor
the Departmantoi Fublia Safety,,or an9 of it6 afilaera
or agoats, was a party to the prooeeding, and we do not
believe that the question of the Validity or the Gomrnor’e
warrant Is iws judioata ag far as’the9 are oonoerned. “c:. ’
Therefore, my are not bouaa bO-I Judge Cfm?*.g order. 1” : .``” .~
25 hme.rioan``Surlspruaenoe~ 252, .it..sa9st:.-,‘: ., “. ~. ~”
.~ ..``.‘~.::.s ;!-:y
_. T..~ .:,::
,,,.”
. ., I. .~’ :I>.,,‘- ~>,~’
*Itsla ~,thewell-establishtid general rule ,+:...-i ":-.. '.~
3
. . . that dlacharge;upon .habaaa~oorpusoperated~.:'.~I*.
as a bar'and estoppel.oalyiq to the~partioular ..
proaeedlhg or .prooesa .under review an& is reti " '
judfaata;oulyupon the.same:guostiompreaeuted ~:,, ;I "<~:.:.
~der,'the~sage. :st&e.,,of~
faobts,;-; .e c“,.:;.
i<:"$.,'
.-i?,
*.~..-~;:,'_
i; ~
503, which ooaaernsd an extra6
Sbdlar qUeSti6U to the one Involved here arose, and ‘the
oourt said%
“16 f*“lastly ainteni& that a-‘tormer
order of dlaoharge ID.a habeas oorpus proaeed-
Iug between the sama Farties la rea adjudloata;
T&e.faots upon whloh,tilisoontention is baaed
are aa tollowst There were two hearings or the
same oharge befom two different ooamittlng
magistrates. On the former tho only testimony:\
offered by the Canadian government aonsisted of
the artldavlts and doouments oertIfied or authen-
tlaated by the Anmrloan aonsul at Piotorla, and
. . .:
._ _-
263
Honorable ZtidmerCarrlson, Jr., Xreotor, 7a6e 11
.-
‘Ia the first habeas aorpua prooeeding the oourt
b‘elow held that suoh oertlfioatlon was unauthor-
ized and Yoid. The appellee was than held for
further prooeedfnea under anOthGr mrraut. On
the Seooad hearing before the oomiIttm nagls-
tote, the %nadian ~overnzvxzt ottered the same l
do o umea ta r y etldenoe, and also oral tcathony
to which we hare referred in an earlier part of
thla oplrllon.
“In the eeoond habees corpus proaeodine, the
oourt below abhored to Its dormer ruling that the
. doauzmtary evlilenoe was not pxoperly authentIaate4,
and further held that the mode ot nuthentloatlon
presoribed by tha atatutiwas oxelusive; and that
oral teatlnony was not campetont. Aasuainp,, without
dG$dIng that the, first order o? dlaoharge was PBS
adjudlaats, It ooula only be 8@ as to thG case then
before the aourt. On the seoond hanrlug, as al-
ready athted, further ooqGteFt tGstlmon9 was.,
offered by the Canadian gouermeat, sutflalent In,
itself to make out a prima Paale oeae, regardless
of the oertlilcatlon by the consular offloor. BT~Q
this statement it becomesat onae atmarent thar
the ‘order in the first proaeedim! was not a bar
to the ssoon4 mooeeCiti. based as it was on dff-
?erent test&mny.” [UnderaaorIng ours.)
A slullar holdIng was also followed In the ~oase of FeOplO
v. Touau, 361, ~111. 516, i, 11. K. (26) 859.
%G have Gsmalned t&e Gmaraor's axtraditionwarrant
about whloh you ask, acd we fln4 that it la in proper for%
For the masoas outlined above, t-e hold that the habeas oor-
pus proosedinga la question, lnoluding Judge Carr*s ffnal .
omler, are not binding on the Department of rUbllo Safety.
Our anmer’ to your question .Is that your department 1s author-
imd to arrest Xldridge R, Price on ths warrant Mvxd by
. the Governor.
em -
A011 C. Roteah
Aa8iStGllt
h