Case Information
*1 !. ,. [*]
OFFICE OF T’HE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRXAS A#bnN
e-C.- uwuIvou- .
I , .‘. .~
._
Hoaorablo f. hr. Btrawn
county miorm~ :- -AI---y dllao7 Ooont7
Rapmdri~e, Teur '
Eonsrabls I. ‘II. Straws, NSe 2
Artiols 2989, Rotlsed 01~11 Statutes o? Tams, reads la part:
Vo person shall be rligibls to any state, oouat7;.pnolmt, or aunlo~ml orfloe la this State, unless he shall be sl lble to hold o??foe under Oonstitutloa o? th s Stats. Y . , .a
There would ssam to be ao doubt that the expression -other hl2h orlmesw uould lnoludo the orlae oi burglary. Csr- tainly any orlmu of ths sams grads as l numerated ones,, namsl islonles, is oamprohsadea by this provision o? the. I’ In Ro.88 f. CrOfUtt,
coast tution. 60 Atl. 90; 64 COIL 574, It was held that ths words l hkh Qrlmor were intsnded to be syIionymou8 with the word dorlmen as u6ed in the ?edsral Comtl- tutlon, sad were su??lolsnt to- inolude a oonspinop, whethsr it was’s felony or a misdemeanor. This question has aot been pamed oa by the oourts o? Texas, but we hats no hesitanoy in holdlog that one who has bseo oomloted or the orhs burglary br the aon8titcrtion 0r Texas rror holdln(l publio bd~a8urisd . r-
A more perplulng question arisen In the use of ths tern aOOnfloteflR, as $0 whether suoh term wouMiinoluds the situatloa growing out o? the suspsadsd ssatenoe law o? Texas. 970 of ths Code o? CrIBlEa Proosdure o?
Artiole !Puas provides that whsre suspenbed seateaoe has been granted *neither the verdiot o? ooariotloa aor the jud&mmt entered thereon shall beoome ?imal.* Yorsovsr, it has bssa hold that whore the ooused reoelres suspsnded ssntsaos, $dgmeat is not rind end oennot ba appealed iron. Sons8 1. Stats, 281 0. w. 1072; B~SIYIW V. State, 164 8. w. 840; Bill v. Ststs, 243 s. w. 882. In oonstruing the rorde*oonrlotrd of a
Horsror, rsloay- la the Suppeded Sentmoe Lpw, the Court or Crlmlasl Appeal8 or Tsxss in Hill v. state, supra, dsolarsd: . . . that the use or ths
nit’ seems oloar *3 ‘-’ ‘- 432 m
,
;, . .
!’
rA
Honorable Jams8 W. Stram, Fags 3
the rerdiot of jurr finding ths ooused 6ullt.y of some felony. The term *oontiotlon* is used in many of our statutes in auoh the sams sense. Our oonsluslsn the above statsmsnt that from
& :ooatioted a? a felony* whose sontsnoe la sus- psnded is within the oompreheosion ot this statute, whsn it turd the expression eoonvioted of a felony*.* The question, asal?estly, Is whether the use of the word ~ooavloted* in ssotion Article Ia a? constitution mesas a verdiOf or guilty s tins1 ooavlotioa. latter oosst?uqtlon has been $lren use of
The this word In the statute (shoe urnded) wbloh mads person who had bsea ooariotsd of a felony insoapstent as e ritasrs.
see ~spi~~ss v. State, 165 6. W. 208; Sbonds v. State, 178 i. 1064; Colsman v. state, U7 8. x. 481; Arola 1. Otats, s.
9 s. w. 665. la Qoss wherean, v. State, S. VI. 865, it was said: .I-~ *The Constitutloa hss rsstod in Ocrsrnor powsr to oomute the plnlsbmsnt *&or . . . . ooarlotion~. a? Toxss, rrtlole IV, para. 11.
see Coastitutloa while in same sense, ths term *oonvlotioa* applies to that tena, as used la our a fins1 jud#mOnt of @lit Constitution msans a rard at of *guilty*, and a pardon I8
granted pondlng appea~lld. . . ." (Underssorlng ltalios)
TO the same Sffeot is Duke T. State, 291 S. W. 539, wherein it was, raid:
*Conoernlxq the moaning or the term 'oonrlotion*, muoh is to be found in ths law books. to Aooordiag the weight of the preoedents, it seems, in its relation to the power to pudoa, that the tbm *oonviotion* ‘refers to the rerdiot of *guilty* a &ry ati Is not rsstrloted to a rind Judgment on suoh rerdlot.a or tbo meaning or the word AB l xhsustlre dl~oussion ~OOn~iotion*, as usad in tha Massaohusstts Constitution, iu found in the oaso or Cmnwealth v. Lookwod, 109 Mass. 539, 12 Am. Rep. 699. After a rsvisw of tho authorltles In wand, elsewhere, the oourt oonoludod: Uassaohusetta, .f--
Honorable J4mes W. strawa, Fwge 4
*The ordinary logal meaning of *oonviotion* when used to designate a partioular atags o? a
OrimiB61 proseoutloa triable by jury, is the ooafea-
alon b? the aooused in open oourt, or the rerdiot re- tumed agaiB6t hia by the jury, whloh asoortai~s and publishes tho faot or hi8 guilti while *judgment* or
*asnten0s~ la the appr~prlats word to denote ths ao- tion of the oourt, bs?orr whloh trial Is had, dsolar- lng tha oonsequenoes to the oonvlot of the fact thus saosrtaiBod.W
See also the Oaaes o? State v. Garrett, 188 S. iV. 58, Tean. 617; Parker v. State, 103 TSBB. 647, a3 3. w. 1092; State 1. Alexander, 7634 C. 23$, 22 Am. Rep. 673; People v.
Marsh, 125 Yioh. 410 84 lf. w. 472, 51 L. R. A. 461; GIlmore 0. State, S Okla. crlm. 639, 108 Pao. 416.
Xelther o? the foregoing oasoa related to the partl- oular, or a like, ooBatitutioBsl proviaioa:~ pertaining to ~udiri04ti0n for ottioe 46 round In sootlon 2 Artiole xv1 ,-, Of th$++TWaS COBStitUtiOB.
$' It la notad that Seotion 2'0? Artiole XVI dlsquali- flea udon the same basis a person Smln enjoying the right of suffrage. fB the 06.0 o? Aldridge 1. Hrunlin, 184 S. W. 602, It was oontsnded that a toter was dIsquali?Ied who had been oonvioted of a ielony and given a auspeoded aentenoe. The court held that the parann wss not a qusllflod voter beosuae the Suspsnded Sentenoe Law under whioh he reoelred his sua- psnelon of sentence waa unoonatltutlona1. Xe do not believe that a neoesaary infereaoe from the oaae Is that the voter would have been qusliiied, notwith.taBd%ng his OWYiOtiOB o? felOBy, if the suspensioa o? his sentsnoe had been under a
oonatItutiona1 Suapendod Sentenoe Law. It la nor6 roaaonable to believe that the oourt only needed to oonnlder the question apart from the suepension of aentonoe in view o? the prior holding8 o? the Texan oourts that the then in xiatenoe Sua- pended Sentenoe Law was unoonatitutiona1. It was BOt Beoeaaery ror the oourt to pass upon the queatlon o? ths qualllloationa o? a person to vote who ma under a suspended aentenoe srldng out o? a oonatltutlonal uapended aentenoq ,lew.
In Snodgraaa v. Stats, 150 S. W. 162, the Court of Criminal hppSSl8 held the Suspended Santsnoe Law enaoted by tha 32nd Leglelature unoonatltutional a6 "clearly in ooutra-
Honorable Jams8 W. Strewn, Page 6
vention of the provision granting to the Governor alone tho power en4 u thority to remit the punishment for orims when 4 parson hai been legally ad udgled guilty, end his puaIsh- meat asssssed, and also Seot 1 oa 2.01 Artlole lb, whsrela it Is provided that mea ad udaed guilty of certain offenses shall ?or?sit oertaln r ghts and privilegea.W
In Baker, v. State, I.56 8. N. WS, the san oourt upheld the oonstitutlonallty o? Senate Bill Ho. 5 smaaed by the 3Srd Legislature upon the follodng prOPO8ltlOn:
*The passage of this law, misnamed bauspensioa o? rantmoe* 2 'is a le illative Aot, parsed Within soope of tha power w hf oh they they alone possess, to iti by law the punishment 0r any and all penal OS- renses. It does not uthorlze a jurr nor the oourts to suspeadr. ~:any law of this Btate, but the Legislature by law has ‘provided iB &ilsa OoBtiBgenOieS no that punishmsnt shall be suffered ?or the iirat lio~tioB o? oertala provlslons o? the Psnal Code.* -. jr' The theory o? the OOUrt in upholding the present sdapended Senteaoe Law was, briefly, that the Legislature had -merely oonatltuted suspended sentsnoe, In certain oontlagea-
oiea, the pUBi8hBt iOr YiO~BtiOn of oertain prOli6iOBS Of tho Psnal Code. As said .iB Fhrrish 1. State, 71 9. N. (2d) -while the auvnded Esntenoe Law Is purely a 274, 276: psnalty statute. . . .(I to Baod&rass oars, wherein the old sus- Advertfag
pended Sentenoe Law wan hold unoonstltutlonal, It is hl ly that the effort to uphold this law am oonst tutional, aignltioant P beoause not in ooatraventlon o? the provisIon the Constltu- tlon grahtlag to ths Oovernor alon the pcmor end authority to remit punlalmeat ror orime, 14s grounded upon ths proposition that the rsoipient of a suspsnded sentence had not been "eon- vlotedw, had sUffered no dlsabllity ?Or?eltsd no olvll rights, and oonaequsntly .the S?eot of ths iaw was not to oloths a per- son agenoy, other th6B the aolerBo~, with power and authority to ramlt the punisham~~ for orlme. In repudiating thin oonten- tlon the sourt held that uordmooaliotfonw In Seo- appearing tlon 11 of Artlols IV of aoastltutioa mesas the verdlot o? the ten not mbreolng tb satanoe
guilty pronouaoed 4 JUr or a tinal judg8ent am OOB radlstlngulshed thererror. I' Moreover,
\
Honorable J-08 ‘8. Strewn, Pago 6
the court polntsd out *an4 no one would qurstlon, thla Aot, a parson tm4 boon triad an4 conriotad, his men- It under tanoe aua~1en484, It It ahoul& bo attempta to try him again ror the aama offense, a p&e of l utrefoia ooaviotlon would ba sustained by any court In tha land, ror It would ba etl- dent that he had been triad and oonviotod of tha acme of- r0n80.-
And In Coon V. Stats, 243 8. W. 914, it was da- claradr
*was udgmant grenting l ppal&nt the benefit a of the *subpen od Santonoe Law’ upon oonrlotlon undar tlrat ipdlotmeat .auoh &algmmt as would support re are not unmlndrul 0r
a plae of Sbrarer oonrlotlon? the rule that a oon?lotlon to be available In bar of another ~oaaoution for the 8emo ‘orranae must be a arim oonvlotion* (oitatlon eases) . . . 10 the aenaa that no appeal ia pending thrrafrom, but no ap- peal la allows4 where-a entanoe la suspended at a de- randant* request. . . . la true the oonrlotlon la .~ It .-.. not final In the aonaa that the state oan enforor punlah-
mant oonfinement in the penltontlary, but It is final in that the State la not permlttad to take any further aotlon in the matter exoept upon a nubaoquent oonrlotion rot anothsrrelony. . . . ThO applloetlon of the law whloh prevents subsequent proaeoutlon ror thr aamo of- fense where thara her been a rormar oonrlotlon neoaa- aarily loads to construing a oonrlotlon with a suspended esntenoa as *rlnel* in the sense thet It will support a plea 0r rormer oonvlotlon.~
Relating apoolrioally to saotlon 2 0r Artiole xv1 0r the Constitution, tha oourt further ha14 in the Snodgraaa case, aupra :
*But there la enother section or our oonatltutlon Seotlon 2 appellant aeama to bare wholly ororlookab. or Art1010 ocsmui4a tha Leglslaturo to neot oer- tain laws in the following languagrz *Laws ahall be ~~48 to xolude iron otiloo, serving on juries, , an4 those who may hevo been or rrom rlght auirra a IMY herealtar gp, oonrio rd Of robbery, perjury, & forgery, or other high orlmea.* The Lagialatura In obe4lanoa to *7 436 Eonorablo fuaa 18. Strawn, Nga 9
(, this oaamand, has passed laws in acoordanoa with
its protialona, but this AOt ot the Lo lalatur~, aSthough a parson had bren rdjubgad gu f lty or rorgem, if appellant*8 oonatruotlon or brlberr, la oorraot, and they aufrar no diubllit~ by reason of auoh oon- bonfllot with this provl- riotion, would ba In dlmot an6 would theretore ba void.* slon 6f thr tIonatltutlolr doom the oourt moan ‘b tbl a laaguagot Qloarlr ulmt If tha Suapandad Santenoo I&r dereata or nulllrlra or oon- tbat fllota with SOOtion 2 of ArtlOU XVI OS the Conafltutlon,~lt would bo void. T his o oafliot, l o o o rding to the oourt, would ii 8 poraai uhc“la the raalpiaat of a l urponbod l a ateaoa result would not rutfar the diaablllt~ pronouaoed by t&a p+orlaloa la other words, as applied to soot&on 8 OS tha Coaatltutioa.
of Artiole lb of th8 Conatltutloa, ir baoauao or an4 u&or the &apenQod ~aotmoa &aw a parsoa oould hold’oiflor, aarva on aad rote notwlthatandlng his hating baoa l djudgo b jurloa, guilty or tha o&as meatlonod, baoauea his asntonoa had b an ,- ruapan@d, would not the l fieot or the duapandad z~entrnoa ? au
be tOWeat the purpose of the Conatltutlon? Whnroaa, if the word *OonviotoQa in Yeotioa 8 ol Artlola 16 or the con- stitution bo’held to moan the l aoortaiumont and publioatlon of guilt, rathar th8n a final oonrlotlon, tha 6laabllitlaa pronounoad by tha Constitution would be l urforad an4 tha spirit purpose or saotion 0r Irtiola 16 is not violated tiuapwhdad l antaao~ law. ,
It la noteworthy that the oourt in tha Baker oasa, upholding the preaait aiaapendad amtenon law, 414 not advert to taotlon 8 or ArtioIe $8. or the Constitution; although Judge Earpar was author of tha opinion and also Or tha
I opinion la the Saodgaaa oaao, wherein be oondamnad the old law as rl0lstlve or Saotloa g Art1010 1G.
The ai~nlfioan~a of this lies in the reasoning adopt- 04 by Judge Earper in tha Baker 0868, namaly, that the now law did not uthorlza a l auapenalon of aontenoo* but provided for dirrerent or no puaiahmaat for a flret This rlolation.
reaaonlng, praaupposaa a *oonvlotloP for the it la baliarad, ofronae charged rot the obvious roaaoa tbut no Eattot ir punlahmeat ba light, as uapan4o4 santenoo, or @mater, as a penitentiary aeatanoa, nonathaleoa therm must bo a OOnriO- Lion, lae punlhmaat aurrarad would bo violattire Or law. fuadamental The roregoing dlaousaioa domonatrataa, ! -cli.r question bsroro us la not Iran mm doubt, an4 la Ut;t-
t I *8 Hoaorabla Jaawa U. Strawn, Faga 8
an open on0 in Texas. We are oonetralntid to the opinion how- ever, that it oomporta with the log10 anployed in the oaaaa wa hare rovlawed, partioularly thoee treating of tha oonati- tutlonallty of tha 8uapandod 8&onoo laws, en4 with tha
rplrlt and purpose of, ths Oonatitutioo, to rula that the rord “oonviotaQ* In Seot1on.Z of Article 16 of the Comtltutfon maan& hmbraooa tha tatua~ resulting from tha applloatlon of the ruapanQa4 entenoo &NW OS Texas to a ver4lOt aaoertala- ing and publlahlng tha guilt or a parson ohargad wlth a orlm- inal orrenaa. that thr otranaa or
It fbllowr, ,&or our.holding bur lary le a -high orimo* wlthia the purview or Saotlon 2 or Art 01s 16 of the Oonatifution or ‘Taxa@, that it la the opinion f
ot this Department that a parson who has bean oonrlota4 of burglary an4 aaaeaaed a two year aua~nde4 aantanoa whloh is at111 in fores and fieot la not eligible to the orrloe or Juetloa of the Peaom under the Conatltutlon and statutes of ,- Taxaa...~~ -.: /.; Toura vary truly
ATTORNEY OlQJEML 07 TEXAS BY
zcs: BBB
A~FROVIDNOV 22, 1940