,.
!.
* 430
OFFICE OF T’HE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRXAS
A#bnN
e-C.- i
uwuIvou- .
I ,
.‘. .~
._
Hoaorablof. hr.Btrawn
countymiorm~
dllao7 Ooont7 :- -AI---y
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
the Oonstitutloa o? thY s Stats. . , .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 the lnumer a ted ones,,
namsl islonles, is oamprohsadea by this provision o? the.
coast I’tution. In Ro.88 f. CrOfUtt, 60 Atl. 90; 64 COIL 574,
It was held that ths words lh k h 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 or burglary
bd~a8urisd br the aon8titcrtion 0r Texas rror holdln(l publio
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.
Artiole 970 of ths Code o? CrIBlEa Proosdure o?
!Puas provides that whsre a 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 looused reoelres a suspsnded ssntsaos, the $dgmeat
is not rind end oennot ba appealed iron. Sons8 1. Stats,
281 0. w. 1072; B~SIYIWV. State, 164 8. w. 840; Bill v. Ststs,
243 s. w. 882.
Horsror, In oonstruing the rorde*oonrlotrd of a
rsloay- la the Suppeded Sentmoe Lpw, the Court or Crlmlasl
Appeal8 or Tsxss in Hill v. state, supra, dsolarsd:
nit’ seems oloar . . . that by the use or ths
.
;,
..
,
‘-432 m
‘-’
!’
rA
Honorable Jams8 W. Stram, Fags 3
the rerdiot of a jurr finding ths looused 6ullt.y
of some felony. The term *oontiotlon* is used
in many of our statutes in auoh the sams sense.
Our oonsluslsn from the above statsmsnt that
& :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 2 0r Article Ia a? the constitution
mesas a verdiOf or guilty or s tins1 ooavlotioa.
The latter oosst?uqtlon has been $lren the use of
this word In the statute (shoe urnded) wbloh mads a 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
s. i. 1064; Colsman v. state, U7 8. x. 481; Arola 1. Otats,
9 s. w. 665.
.I-~ wherean, la Qoss v. State, 298 S. VI. 865, it was said:
*The Constitutloa hss rsstod in the Ocrsrnor the
... powsr to oomute the plnlsbmsnt *&or ooarlotion~.
see Coastitutloa a? Toxss, rrtlole IV, para. 11.
while in same sense, ths term *oonvlotioa* applies to
a fins1 jud#mOnt of @lit that tena, as used la our
Constitution msans a rard I8at of *guilty*, and a pardon
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. Aooordiag to
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* by a &ry ati Is not rsstrloted
to a rind Judgment on suoh rerdlot.a
AB lxhsustlre dl~oussion or tbo meaning or the word
~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,
.f-- Uassaohusetta, and elsewhere, the oourt oonoludod:
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,
136 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 0r Artiole xv1
,-, Of th$++TWaSCOBStitUtiOB.
$' 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?
a 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 lxiatenoe 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 luapended 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 1oa 2.01 Artlole lb, whsrela it
Is provided that mea ad udaed guilty of certain offenses
shall ?or?sit oertaln r i 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 a bauspensioa
o? rantmoe* 2 'is a le illative Aot, parsed Within the
soope of tha power w hf oh they and they alone possess,
to iti by law the punishment 0r any and all penal OS-
renses. Itdoes not luthorlze a jurr nor the oourts
to suspeadr. ~:anylaw of this Btate, but the Legislature
by law has ‘provided that iB &ilsa OoBtiBgenOieS no
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 4 suspended sentsnoe, In certain oontlagea-
oiea, the pUBi8hBt iOr a YiO~BtiOn of oertain prOli6iOBS Of
tho Psnal Code. As said .iB Fhrrish 1. State, 71 9. N. (2d)
274, 276: -while the auvnded Esntenoe Law Is purely a
psnalty statute. . . .(I
Advertfag to the Baod&rass oars, wherein the old sus-
pended Sentenoe Law wan hold unoonstltutlonal, It is hl ly
aignltioant that the effort to uphold this law am oonst Ptutional,
beoause not in ooatraventlon o? the provisIon 0r 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 lS?eot of ths iaw was not to oloths a per-
son or agenoy, other th6B the aolerBo~, with power and authority
to ramlt the punisham~~ for orlme. In repudiating thin oonten-
tlon the sourt held that the uordmooaliotfonw appearing In Seo-
tlon 11 of Artlols IV of the aoastltutioa mesas the verdlot o?
guilty pronouaoed by 4 JUr the ten not lmbreolng tb satanoe
or a tinal judg8ent am OOB I'radlstlngulshed thererror. Moreover,
\
.
435
Honorable J-08 ‘8. Strewn, Pago 6
the court polntsd out *an4 no one would qurstlon, It under
thla Aot, a parson tm4 boon triad an4 conriotad, his men-
tanoe aua~1en484, It It ahoul& bo attempta to try him again
ror the aama offense, a p&e of lutrefoia 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 the udgmant grenting lppal&nt the benefit
of the *subpenaod Santonoe Law’ upon oonrlotlon undar
the tlrat ipdlotmeat .auoh a &algmmt as would support
a plae of Sbrarer oonrlotlon? re are not unmlndrul 0r
the rule that a oon?lotlon to be available In bar of
another ~oaaoution for the 8emo ‘orranae must be a
arim oonvlotion* (oitatlon or eases) . . . 10 the
aenaa that no appeal ia pending thrrafrom, but no ap-
peal la allows4 where-a lentanoe la suspended at a de-
randant* request. . . . It la true the oonrlotlon la .~
.-.. not final In the aonaa that the state oan enforor punlah-
mant by oonfinement in the penltontlary, but It is final
i 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 a 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
appellant aeama to bare wholly ororlookab. Seotlon 2
or Art1010 16 ocsmui4a tha Leglslaturo to lneot oer-
tain laws in the following languagrz *Laws ahall be
~~48 to lxolude iron otiloo, serving on juries, , an4
rrom the rlght 0r auirra a those who may hevo been or
IMY herealtar gp, oonrio&rd Of robbery, perjury, forgery,
or other high orlmea.* The Lagialatura In obe4lanoa to
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,
or brlberr, if appellant*8 oonatruotlon la oorraot,
and they aufrar no diubllit~ by reason of auoh oon-
riotion, would ba In dlmot bonfllot with this provl-
slon 6f thr tIonatltutlolr an6 would theretore ba void.*
ulmt doom the moan ‘b tbl a laaguagot Qloarlr
oourt
tbat If tha Suapandad Santenoo I&r dereata or nulllrlra or oon-
fllota with SOOtion 2 of ArtlOU XVI OS the Conafltutlon,~lt
would bo void. T h is
o o a fliolt, to the oourt,
o o o r ding would
result ii 8 poraai uhc“la the raalpiaat of a lurponbod la a tea o a
wo uldno t rutfar the diaablllt~ pronouaoed by t&a p+orlaloa
OS tha Coaatltutioa. la other words, as applied to soot&on 8
of Artiole lb of th8 Conatltutloa, ir baoauao or an4 u&or the
&apenQod ~aotmoa &awa parsoa oould hold’oiflor, aarva on
jurloa, aad rote notwlthatandlng his hating baoa ldjudgo b
guilty or tha o&as meatlonod, baoauea his asntonoa had b an
,- ruapan@d, would not the lfieot 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 laoortaiumont and publioatlon
of guilt, rathar th8n a final oonrlotlon, tha 6laabllitlaa
pronounoad by tha Constitution would be lurforad an4 tha
spirit and purpose or saotion 8 0r Irtiola 16 is not violated
by the tiuapwhdad lantaao~ 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
I Judge Earpar was the 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 0r 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 luthorlza a lauapenalon of aontenoo* but provided
for a dirrerent or no puaiahmaat for a flret rlolation. This
reaaonlng, it la baliarad, praaupposaa a *oonvlotloP for the
ofronae charged rot the obvious roaaoa tbut no Eattot ir
punlahmeat ba light, as a luapan4o4 santenoo, or @mater, as
a penitentiary aeatanoa, nonathaleoa therm must bo a OOnriO-
Lion, llae the punlhmaat aurrarad would bo violattire Or
fuadamental law.
t
! -cli.rthe
The roregoing dlaousaioa
question
domonatrataa, or 00
bsroro us la not Iran mm doubt, an4Ut;t-
la
.
I
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& and hmbraooa tha ltatua~resulting from tha applloatlon
of the ruapanQa4 lentenoo &NWOS Texas to a ver4lOt aaoertala-
ing and publlahlng tha guilt or a parson ohargad wlth a orlm-
inal orrenaa.
It fbllowr, ,&or our.holding that thr otranaa or
bur lary le a -high orimo* wlthia the purview or Saotlon 2 or
Artf 01s 16 of the Oonatifution or ‘Taxa@, that it la the opinion
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 lfieot la not eligible to the orrloe or
Juetloa of the Peaom under the Conatltutlon and statutes of
,- Taxaa...~~
-.:
/.;
i Toura vary truly
OlQJEML07 TEXAS
ATTORNEY
BY
zcs: BBB
22, 1940
A~FROVIDNOV