*1 discharge. upon petition to There- court rule that to premature. petition if be to mandate filed would fore prohibition we are here con- A writ with which court from restrain the cerned would available only proceeding after a the trial case entitled to that the accused was determination discharge, which circumstances court under jurisdiction proceed in the further be without would Court, LaPorte Circuit ex rel. Kunkel v. case. See State Indiana Trial Flanagan, & Hamilton’s supra; Wiltrout Therefore, 63, p. Practice, §2990, ch. Appellate & present state of the record under the conclude we upon which to sustain law in fact basis there is no cause. in this prohibition the writ of prohibition heretofore issued temporary writ therefore dissolved. JJ., Landis, Bobbitt, Arterburn and concur. J.,
Emmert, participating. C.
Note—Reported in N. 2d 600. E.
Overlade, Warden, v. etc. Wells. 29,201. July 1, Filed
[No. 1955.] *3 Steers, Attorney General, Edwin K. and Frank E. Spencer, Deputy General, Attorney appellant. for Cooper, Defender, Perry
James C. Public W. Cross, Deputy Defender, appellee. Public This appeal judgment granting J. is from
Bobbitt, corpus releasing a writ of habeas from custody of the Warden of the Indiana State Prison. assigns
Appellant overruling as error of his motion for a new trial. by stipulation parties evidence of the summary necessary understanding thereof a full questions presented. *4 January
Appellee 12, 1940, was sentenced on years a term Court serve of 2 Gibson Circuit forgery. in for the crime the Indiana State Prison of January 12, He On was released on on 1943. May Louis, 29, appellee in was arrested St. Missouri, supervision where he on under the was of Board of of the of Probation and Parole State by request Supervisor Missouri of the of Paroles of Department Welfare of the Public State 1, 1946, Indiana. June the Missouri authorities On Supervisor appellee’s notified the Indiana of Paroles of 1946, Subsequently, a arrest. on June viola- by the tion warrant was executed Warden of the Indiana to the and forwarded Director of Probation State Prison City, In Missouri. a letter cov- in Jefferson and Parole Supervisor ering the warrant transmittal of Paroles of Indiana said: Warrant No. “Attached is Parole Violation urge against We our detainer. to be filed Wells as however, state; he your if prosecuted in
that he be convicted, pending please for us hold him Indiana of Trustees of the Board decision State Prison in case.” 21,1946, for the Board Parole On June regular monthly meeting, declared Prison, at its delinquent. October Wells, аppellee, On year in of one term sentenced Louis, Missouri, the end City Workhouse St. was returned term, on October of this again He was Prison. imprisoned Indiana State in the on on June released 1, 1951, appellee was arrested or about March
On charge Illinois, forgery. Carmel, aon He waived Mt. hearing and informed the preliminary Justice day parole in Indiana. On the next after the he was on hearing County, the Sheriff of preliminary Wabash Prison Illinois, the Indiana State and informed called telephone” County person that the on Wabash “the *5 Attorney State’s had him told to inform the prosecute appellеe authorities that Illinois would not if Indiana would take him back for violation. This repeated statement was later Indiana District having charge appellee, telephone Parole Officer in a replied: The conversation with Sheriff. officer you prosecute “We’d rather would Wells Illinois you report we will send detainer. You can our send us a Appellee was, upon conviction, of the sentence.” sen- years tenced to a term of one to fourteen in the Southern Penitentiary. Illinois Acting
Also, on March Director of the Division of of Indiana wrote the Corrections Sheriff advising County, Carmel, Illinois, him of Wabash Mt. had informed the District Division been appellee’s and re- Parole arrest in Illinois Officer of covering case, questing report the circumstances .of asking kept that the advised as to the Division be outcome. letter The also stated: attaching are “We our violation warrant appreciate your filing No. which we would a detainer. We not want do this to interfere with prosecution attaching trip- there. We are also copies extradition, licate of our waiver of which we your get appreciate attempting would sign. him to sign please copies these, he If return two will properly
to this office executed. acknowledge receipt “Please and, of the warrant convicted, in the to him.” event advise us the institution he is sent and see that our which warrant follows Department of Public Welfare subsequently notified that had been delivered to the Southern Penitentiary April 6, 1951, Illinois on April 12, and on Acting Director, Division of Corrections of Department of Public Welfare of Indiana wrote the Penitentiary Warden Illinois as follows: attaching are “We our violation warrant filing appreciate your No. as a detainer ceipt we would against acknowledge him. Pleasе re- your mark records to of this warrant eligible notify release date so that days prior approximately us a decision can be made relative return to our institution.” to his the Warden After issuance of warrant 2, 1951, the Board on March the Indiana State Prison monthly regular meet- prison, at its such of Paroles of *6 appellee again 16, 1951, ing, declared on March delinquent. upon release further discloses his
The record appellee ar- City was in Missouri Workhouse from Prison on returned to the State rested and date of 1947, time the termination 7, at which October imposed by the Gibson unexpired maximum term his year, period one of for was extended Court Circuit January days after and from and sixteen months three tolled running was of his sentence 1954, 12, because 143, §8, p. 1897, ch. by provided of the Acts as Replacement. being §13-251, Burns’ 1942 Peni from the Illinois State appellee’s release After to the Indiana and returned tentiary arrested he was at which time the on October Prison unexpired term of his maximum of the date termination years, and months for two seven extended sentence April of because days and after from six extending petitioner’s violation, thus parole second Prison in the Indiana State of service appеlle’s term by §13-251, provided 4,1957, including as December supra. presented for our questions are consideration.
Two Acting Supervisor of Paroles and the Did First: of of the the Division Corrections Welfare Director of
443
Department
by
act,
of Indiana
their
and failure to
acts
evidence,
summary
as hereinabove set out in the
permanently
right
any
waive
further
the State
Indiana to recommit
to the Indiana State Prison
parole
violation of his
?
question
A similar
was before this court in Gilchrist
Overlade
233 Ind.
In the Gilchrist page 2d, E. N. we said: *7 may, “The of Indiana Governor in the exercise grant power pardons to of his and reprieves, sur- prisoner
render government to another state or to the Federal pay penalty to for a crime com- against govern- in that or mitted ment, the Federal effectively ain manner which would waive any right custody jurisdiction to future Such of such prisoner. tation which would, effect, action in to the abe commu- amounting remaining of sentence time required could be to serve under in commitment Indiana. power no Parole Board Indiana has to “The any pris- commute the sentence of pardon toor oner.” power
If the Parole has Board no such it follows that, reasons, Department for the same Welfare, any employees, Public nor of its has grant power pardons or commute the any prisoner. sentence of appellee
The surrender of to the Mis authorities of charges upon souri and there Illinois the criminal against pending him not constitute a waiver did right of the to recommit him to the Indiana State imposed the time the statu Prison to serve out parole. te1 of the terms of his Gilchrist violation 569, 2d Ind. 122 N. E. v Overlade . 93, supra. 98, to retain did not desire
If the authorities willing suspend custody appellee it their and wеre which temporarily while he served the sentences Illinois, it was a in Missouri and he had received them, wholly and was not right resided which or com enforce personal appellee which he could one Overlade, v. plain not exercised. Gilchrist because it was ex rel. also: State supra, there cited. See and cases 152, E. 2d 208. 124 N. (1955), 234 Ind. Dowd Smith in the Indiana State be held Second: Could unexpired equal maximum period to the for a Prison remaining at the time his delin- term of his sentence 4, 1957, declared, i.e., December until quencies were January time his longer than except for his have been served term would maximum parole? on delinquencies while being §13-251, Burns’ §8, p. ch. Acts provides: supra, Replacement, meeting board of commis- next “At the prison, prisoners, held at such paroled sioners retaking of issuing for the of warrant after 219, being §13-251, 143, §8, p. Burns’ 1942 ch. 1. Acts Replacement. *8 any prisoner, notified paroled said board shall be been re- prisoner have then shall If thereof. said given oppor- an be prison, he shall turned tunity board said board, and the said appear said before given, opportunity may, has been such after returned, yet been has in said or declare said case shall, delinquent, and he prisoner to be warrant, be such virtue arrested whenever period prison a imprisoned in said thereafter unexpired term sentence equal maximum to the delinquency is prisoner, the time such such abso- on declared, lutely of released unless sooner discharged of commissioners board (Our italics.) paroled prisoners.” section, phrases construing and words In above meaning, ordinary given plain usual their must clearly contrary purpose shown unless a Rev Shirmeyer, Inc. Ind. v. R. L. statute itself. E. 2d 99 N. Bd. 229 Ind. enue Hays (1935), Ind. 847; ex rel. et al. State Porter purpose is here shown. 410, 413, 196 E. No N. 238. such acts, being part of the 13-251, supra, Section appеllee’s and considered read into must be provi- if the manner as in the same thereof condition the certificate recited were of the statute sions parole. delinquent
Appellee on June first declared delinquency, thereafter, of such and was because imprisoned 1947. on October arrested again subsequently paroled declared and was He was For this 1951. delinquent a time on March second to the Indiana and returned delinquency he was arrested 22, October Prison on automatically, under operates supra, 13-251, Section suspend the run- conditions, to toll or specified certain invoking of ning prisoner’s sentence. aof He, prisoner. wholly with the rests the statute alone, per- furnish conditions or must operation form the acts which result statute. *9 bar, appellee,
In by the case the violation of his parole, operation machinery started in the which tolled running period 21, the of his sentence for the from June 7, 1947, year, 1946 to October a total of 1 3 and months days, 16, from March and 1951 to October J6 years, days. a 2 total of 7 months and 6 He cannot now complain the of own results his acts. parole by our authorized statutes2 does not toll suspend running sentence, the of the nor does it
operate parole the to shorten term. While on legal custody pa in the remains agent prison role warden of the from which paroled expiration term he until the maximum is discharged provided specified in until as his sentence or 219, being §13-248, 1897, 143, §5, p. Acts ch. law. Replacement. 1942 Burns’ parole a .punishment,
While an amelioration of (1923), 193, 247, Anderson v. Corall 263 U. 68 L. Ed. S. legal 43, is, effect, imprison 44 it S. Ct. still Spiegel, (1896), Drinkall ment. v. 68 Sheriff 36 L. R. A. 486. The Conn. Atl. subject while on are to the sentence service provisions §13-251, supra, parolee a that whenever lawfully delinquent shall, declared been whenever has retaking, pursuant to a warrant issued his arrested imprisoned in the institution from which he was period equal unexpired to the maximum paroled for a delinquency is at the time such his sentence term of lawful declared, he is sooner released some unless authority. appellee not violated had his
If and had not 143, §5, p. 219, being §13-248, ch. 2. Acts Burns’ 1942 Replacement. imposed delinquent, regularly declared his sentence been expired would have Circuit Court Gibson though serving he were inside However, statute,3 when he under our Prison. subsequently and was violated the terms only prison delinquent, in the the time served declared time at plus time on to the which served delinquent counts, that time be- he was declarеd delinquent and which he was declared tween the date on prison is excluded and must he was returned to the date unexpired part of maximum term. be considered instance, on he was from date In each delinquent until was returned to declared running Prison, his sentence Indiana State Cir., tolled, (1950), 6 180 F. 2d Nave Bell 198; Zerbst Kidwell U. S. v. *10 872, 808; 116 R. 1399, A. L. See also:
L. Ed. 58 Ct. S. effect, 811, was, legal in L. R. 116 A. Annotation. though escaped. suspended he had Anderson as much 247, 193, (1923), 68 L. Ed. 44 Ct. 263 U. S. Corall S. 359, supra; (1938), 304 U. 82 43, Zerbst Kidwell S. v. 808, supra; 872, 1399, 116 A. L. R. 58 Ed. S. Ct. L. Cir., 173, 175; (1934), 5 73 F. 2d Aderhold Platek v. (1896), Spiegel, 68 Conn. 36 Drinkall v. Sheriff supra. R. A. Atl. 36 L. a maximum of to serve
Appellee herein was sentenced Prison. service years Indiana Since in the State 14 interrupted on two occasions his sentence been com term has not the full parole violations (1938), 304 U. Kidwell S. pleted. Zerbst v. 872, 116 A. L. R. 1399, 58 S. Ct. Ed.
L.
supra. resulting being appellee’s own misconduct in
Since his delinquent prevented completion has declared twice 13-251, supra. 3. Section original sentence, it follows that the au-
of his thority Parole for Indiana State of the Board of correspondingly appellee been Prison over has extended and continued. delinquencies only
Appellee’s suspended tolled and running of his sentence but rendered him liable to arrest and service the full maximum sentence though may passed which, the time even have delinquencies parole, but for his whilе on it would Cir., completed. Platek Aderhold have been v. 173, 175, supra. 2d 73 F. appellee
The time which City served in the Workhouse against Missouri was for the commission anof offense Likewise, that State. the time which he served in the Penitentiary in Illinois was for the commission of an in that offense State. time which he has serving upon and is after his two served arrests war- after rants issued the Warden of the State Prison and being delinquent, his declared violation parole. pay He this to the State his cannot debt terms.of by serving prisons time in in Missouri of Indiana for crimes committed those Illinois states. the date on which he was
From first declarеd delin- i.e., 21, 1946, appellee quent, June owed the State of for the service remainder of his maxi- amounting years,
mum sentence 6 months days. and 21 If had not violated his January 12, term would have ended on However, result of crime in the as the State of custody not returned to the actual he was Missouri *11 Prison until the Indiana State October the Warden again began his sentence time to run 1947, at which the maximum term of service of his and he resumed by only be actual could satisfied service sentence by duly authority. constituted Ex remitted unless parte App. (1953), 254 P. McBride 2d Cal. 117; People Ill. E. 2d Dixon N. 2d 816. required
Thus, by operation he to was statute4 years, 6 and 21 serve the balance of his term—7 months days—after prison on his returned to October reasoning to his delin- Applying the same second Illinois, following quency in the his arrest State Prison appellee’s in the Indiana State term of service statute, operation of the was, by own act and his 4, 1957. extended to December discharge satisfy debt to
Appellee could imposed serving sentence Indiana State of there jurisdiction a crime committed for another Prison. parole from the State while on re- sentence portion maximum of his The unserved delinquent could maining declared the time ways, (1) оnly three legally satisfied the confines within actual service by the by pardon or commutation Prison; (2) Board by appropriate action of Governor; (3) Prison. Indiana State Parole releasing judgment stated, the above reasons
For contrary law. the cause remanded judgment is reversed deny the writ. the trial court with instructions Landis, JJ., concur. Arterburn Achor, J., opinion. concurs with Emmert, J., opinion. C. dissents with
Concurring Opinion J. majority I concur the result of the Achor, opinion, it but occurs to me that one issue is raised supra. 13-251,
4. Section *12 I deserves further consideration. have discussed concurring opinion. issue this It contended that Indiana is the failure of the of State parolee by the to retake when made available the states of Missouri and Illinois constituted a waiver of his during imprisonment by delinquency period the of those states. support
In of this contention attention is called that, parolee apprehended the fact if a can be within Indiana, it State is manifest intention of the parole (Acts 1897, §§5, 8, page statute ch. 219, being §§13-248, 13-249, 13-250, 13-251, Burns’ 1942 that, Repl.) parole, parolee on violation of his must prison possible if be returned to the it is to do so. There fore, necessarily delinquency it follows that a can only declared board in event the return possible. Upon subject, is not this supra, provides: “Any §13-250, expressly officer of any prison, officer authorized to other serve said process within this state to whom such warrant criminal required to execute authorized and be delivered is shall returning taking prisoner and said warrant said italics.) prison.” (Our him to said regard However, legislature the intention of the with taking charged of a with a crimi- to the violator declaring state a delin- in another before nal offense entirely presents If a quency, an different situation. charged offense committed parolee with second is state, contemрlated it parole in this is while on presently for the offense tried second that he be statute time for such second guilty that he serve found and if sentence has the first to and after in addition offense 205, being §9-2250, 61, §1, p. 1947, ch. (Acts served been (1953 Supp.)). The statute seems Repl. Burns’ parolee legislative that a intention clear demonstrate permitted should not be to assert or fact use the avoiding separate as a means and additional punishment subsequent for the second It offense. would prevail seem that such intention would whether such subsequent offense committed
or in another state.
Bearing in legislature mind intention of the exprеssed, problem above which confronts the *13 essentially board is as follows: The is board authority vested charged with the is with re- the sponsibility considering the record each as eligibility parole. related to parolee his for If a a state, commits crime in this the board has no responsibility regard with a to conviction for that parolee offense. This is true because the is in the con- jurisdiction tinuing prosecuted of the state and can be proper processes the authorities as the of our courts permit. However, procedure possible such is not if the crime is in committed state another there no because continuing custody such as between the officers of In- sovereign independently diana and those of If states. parolee charged a offense, is to a be with second com- guarantees state, mitted in another his constitutional require “speedily that delay.” he be tried and without in This means that he must be tried state that before being necessary returned to Indiana. This is to both the the accused in that state and order witnesses can they testify can while be their recollection obtained offense, If is clear. he is convicted of that the case his sentence in it that hе must first serve that follows being the to to State of Indiana state before returned complete parole. for he his sentence which was on procedure provided
The above differs from that in supra, only parolee §9-2250, that the serves time for completing in the state the offense other before second for in sentence the offense this state. first however, not, punish- difference avoid should serve to ment for the second offense. In the of Dowd v. case 2d Basham 233 Ind. 116 N. E.
it second offense is was stated that sentence for the the it shall be “without to time when made reference executed.” parolee
If a commits a crime in another state and the is offered that state to board of Indiana parole violator, as a circumstances of the case make duty responsibility it the board determine parolee justifies whether or the record of permitting pay penalty him return without to also If, in under offense that state his second committed parolee record, board determines that the committed subjected trial for the crime should say state, action we cannot such him another right delinquency declare of its waiver constitutes imprisonment for the parolеe’s during period of action, taking board Rather, this crime. second by the responsibility authorized its exercised has the board with (§13-251). The situation *14 statute parolee’s by own brought the about was was confronted challenging the for basis wrongdoing I find no and the matter. in exercise of discretion board’s Opinion Dissenting judg- J. The maximum of C. sentence the Emmert, by January the Circuit Court on ment entered Gibson 1940, expired by specific 12, at end its terms the of January 12, years, (14) Ap- to-wit: fourteen escaped, and unless this court can pellee find some never judgment in force the time the which was statute operation that extended the term pronounced changed not be appellee’s term or modified law, could
453
any
agency
executive or administrative
of the state.
only
judgment
“It is
virtue of the
of a court of com-
petent
jurisdiction that a citizen can be condemned to
imprisonment,
expires
when
the time
for which the
given
runs,
judgment,
prisoner
sentence
the
in
discharge.”
is entitled to
v. Murdock
Woodward
445,
(1890),
124 Ind.
Since dissent in Gilchrist v. Overlade (1954), 233 Ind. 122 E. Judge N. 2d in which Gilkison concurred, additional research position has fortified our proper toas construction of the statutes involved. opinions jurisdictions of other relied on to extend the sentence here are based on different statutes which permit by operation an extension of law of the maxi- judgment. mum term the penal
Like statutes, all statutes are to be construed in favor against the citizen and a restric- liberty. tion Dowd, Warden v. Johnston 221 Ind. Chapter N. E. 2d 976. 143 of the 1897 provides Acts procedure the causes and for Act, (§13-248, revocation. Section 5 of the Burns’ Replacement) provides shall be “until expiration specified of the maximum term in his sen- tence . . (§13-249, Replace- . .” Section 6 Burns’ 1942 ment) any authorizes issuance of the warrant “at prior period time to the maximum for which such might prisoner prison havе been confined within the upon walls . . .” sentence . Section of the Act (§13-251, Replacement) Burns’ states that may delinquent, to be board “declare said warrant, shall, by virtue of such whenever arrested prison period imprisoned be thereafter said unexpired equal maximum term of sentence delinquency prisoner, time such is declared at the such any of these sections is not word . .” There . . *15 454 could the board a construction that
which countenances beyond the maximum held the end of order the any doubt judgment. if there could be But term of the Assembly made it years this, later the General two judgment was doubly term of the the maximum clear Chap- imprisonment the enactment the end Replace- 1942 (§13-255, Burns’ of the 1899 Acts ter 113 , provided: ment) which “That the maximum time pris- for which said may imprisoned be
oners under said Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not exceed the full term for originally.” which was sentenced subsequent This act was not noticed in the Gilchrist majority case, opinion appeal nor in the on the at bar. effect, With latter act still in full this force and how statutory authority can it be reasoned that board has change judgment. the terms of a “Over and over again public that this court has held officers in Indiana delegated powers—‘naked powers’ they exercise but сalled. Even constitutional officers have been have been v. delegated powers. Lange Branham this rule of held to (1856), 8 Matlock v. 497; Strange (1861), Ind. always . of this court have 57. . The decisions Ind. . public the rule that a strict adherence to indicated delegated authority.” ex only rel. exercise officers Brewing 182 Ind. Co. Home statutory only, and as board is E. 909. N. Commission, it “derives Service Public was said n its statute, authority solely and un from power authority in the can found grant power less a there is none.” Chi concluded it must be statute (1943), 221 Comm. Public Service cago E. I. R. Co. v. & E. N. 2d Ind. are based on the federal cases statutes
The federal entirely the maximum different as to term. are *16 18, §4205, U.S.C.A., that, Title un сommands “The expired imprisonment any prisoner term of of such shall begin custody to run from the date ishe returned to the warrant, Attorney of under the General said and the prisoner parole time the on was not the shall diminish time he was sentenced to serve.” An earlier act noted in Anderson Corall 263 U. S. S. Ct. 247, stated, parole Ed. “If or shall 68 L. such order parole terminated, pris said be and the the revoked so originally oner shall of sentence serve the remainder the parole imposed; prisoner on and time the was out the time for not taken into account to diminish the shall be which he sentenced.”1 ought put stop parole
This court to a the to authorities playing prisoners. of this state cat and mouse these with any prisoner paroled 1. “When shall be rearrested on order parole, of said of Commission violation the conditions of his may his required otherwise, by or be to serve said Commission may original sentence; paroled may the remainder of time or part original sentence, not be considered or calculated in the discretion of the Commission.” a of the as (Acts 1908, pp. 1115,1116.) Georgia Section 77-505 Code of 1933. prisoner violating provisions “A of his and for whose return a warrant has shall, beеn issued the said director after the issuance of such warrant escaped prisoner be treated as an owing state, to liable, arrested, service and shall be when to unexpired portion serve out the imprisonment, of his maximum and the time from delinquency of his date declared to the date any part of portion his arrest shall not be counted as or 791.36, Michigan Compiled Laws, time to served.” Section 1948. suspension “From and after the or revocation of the any prisoner custody of and until his return to he shall be escapee fugitive justice an part deemed and from and no during escapee fugitive justice time be a which he is an from shall part of his term.” Section Penal Code of California of 1949. any prisoner shall “If violate the conditions of his or prison board, as fixed release he shall be declared delin- quent, escaped prisoner and shall thereafter be treated an owing state, liable, arrested, to service and shall be when to unexpired possible imprison- term his serve out the maximum ment, delinquency the time from the date his declared any portion part the date of his arrest shall not be counted as or served; 62-1528, . . . .” of time Section General Statutes of (Anno.) Kansas pаroled prisoner aWhen an act commits or omission parole, they ought per- a that is violation of his not be promptly mitted to stand and refuse act to rearrest delinquency. or declare the Our Constitu- that, tion shall commands “Justice be admininstered speedily delay.” self-executing, . . . and without This is system that our is and it idle to contend justice. part Parole officers administration prosecuting attorneys, they judges cannot are not They judgments. have prosecutions or enter institute promptly duty act and rearrest a constitutional by any delinquent prisoner lawful means. evidence they are not in this casе. Prisoners did not discloses *17 outlaws, they still entitled to the are and common law protection of our Constitution. paragraph the case rhetorical No. of com-
In this alleged: plaint the writ “Petitioner further avers that on the ........ day February, 1951, petitioner of was arrested Carmel, Illinois, charged County, Mt. Wabash with issuing arraigned fraudulent checks and when be- Judge petitioner
fore Circuit W. Eovaldi Court B. judge informed on the said that from Prison; Judge that the said ad- the Indiana State County, Mobley M. vised M. of Wabash Sheriff officer, petitioner’s parole the Illinois to contact Welton, that if and to said officer Joe advise аccept petitioner, this authorities would the Indiana petitioner would turn the the Illinois authorities a violator. to the Indiana authorities as over avers that the further Petitioner Supervisor Cooley, by Assistant A. J. authorities of Welfare, of Parole, Department of Public County, Mobley Wabash Indiana, advised Sheriff recom- they return and did not wish that Illinois by authorities. Illinois prosecution mended and admitted the return stands not denied This was pleadings. record parole picture is the sort we This same had in Gilchrist v. Overlade 233 Ind. N. E. 93, supra,. provisions Chapter 2d 143 of the supersede provisions 1897 Acts do not of our Con- opinion may my It stitution. is that state waive its terms, right statutory parolee under the to rearrest waiver, assuming but authorize a statute does mandate the statute cannot eliminate the constitutional speedily justice without de- be administered lay, penal on reforma- and that the code based shall justice. and 18 of and not Sections 12 tion vindictive I, When a constitutional Art. Constitution Indiana. statutory violated, specific of a absence mandate cannot act omission provision or for waiver constitutional, Con- the act or omission make prohibits the state and superior force stitution its rights, of such agents depriving the individual from its any beyond power of placed are above legislature impair. to abolish
Note.—Reported 2d N. E. Company York New Central Railroad Johnson, v. Administratrix, Etc. *18 29,246. July 6,
[No. Filed 1955.]