Ex Parte Redwine

Citation236 S.W. 96
Decision Date19 October 1921
Docket Number(No. 6473.)
PartiesEx parte REDWINE.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Burkett, Anderson & Orr, of Eastland, for appellant.

C. M. Cureton, Atty. Gen., and T. E. Humphrey, C. L. Stone, L. C. Sutton, and R. H. Hamilton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Upon presentation of an original application therefor to a member of this court in vacation, a writ of habeas corpus was granted relator Jewel Redwine, and made returnable before the full court at this term. The matter is now before us for consideration on the merits of said application.

Relator was in the state penitentiary serving out a sentence of 18 years for murder, final judgment having been rendered against him in said cause on May 19, 1920 (221 S. W. 605). On November 22 or 23, 1920, one G. E. Bedford, of Cisco, made written application duly sworn to by him asking that relator be paroled to him, stating therein that he agreed to furnish employment to relator until the latter received his final discharge, said employment consisting of running a road grader on a county road contract, and to pay relator the sum of $4.50 per day, and further stipulating to report promptly to the Prison Commissioners any absence from work, or any violations of the conditions of said parole on the part of relator. On November 23, 1920, the following parole was issued from the office of Gov. Hobby, then Governor of Texas:

"Proclamation by the Governor of the State of Texas.

"To All to Whom These Presents shall come:

"Whereas, at the ____ term, A. D. 19__, of the district court of Eastland county, state of Texas, Jewell Redwine was convicted on a charge of murder, and his punishment assessed at ____ years confinement in the state penitentiary; and

"Whereas, it appears that applicant has now been confined in the county jail for more than 23 months, and now Hon. G. E. Bedford is asking for his parole; and

"Whereas, Hon. G. E. Bedford agrees to pay the said Jewell Redwine the sum of $4.50 per day for his services running a road grader on the county road, also to take a friendly interest in him and to report to the commissioners each month in regard to his health and conduct;

"Whereas, the Board of Prison Commissioners, who investigated the facts surrounding this case, recommend that the applicant be permitted to go out of the confines of the prison enclosures, and yet remain in the boundaries of the state of Texas, subject to the rules of parole as provided by the Board of Prison Commissioners:

"Now, therefore, I, W. P. Hobby, Governor of Texas, do by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of this state, hereby, for the reason specified, now on file in the office of the Secretary of State, grant the said Jewell Redwine a parole, conditioned on his or her good behavior and observance of the law and rules under which application for a parol was made.

"In testimony whereof I have hereunto signed my name and caused the seal of state to be hereon impressed, at the city of Austin, this 23d day of Nov., A. D., 1920.

                   "[Seal.]           W. P. Hobby
                                        "Governor of Texas
                "By the Governor
                 "C. D. Mims, Secretary of State."
                

It appears that thereupon relator was released from said confinement. On July 1, 1921, Gov. Neff, who had succeeded Gov. Hobby, issued the following proclamation:

"Proclamation by the Governor of the State of Texas.

"To All to Whom These Presents Shall Come:

"Whereas, at the August term, A. D. 1919, of the district court of Eastland, state of Texas, Jewell Redwine was convicted of a felony, to wit, murder, and his punishment assessed at eighteen years' confinement in the State Penitentiary; and

"Whereas, it is now appearing to me that the said Jewell Redwine was on the 25th day of November, A. D. 1920, granted a parole by the then Governor of Texas, and that he was paroled to one G. E. Bedford of Cisco, Texas; and

"Whereas, it further appearing to me that the said Jewell Redwine has broken the terms and agreement under which he was granted a parole:

"Now, therefore, I, Pat M. Neff, Governor of Texas, do, for legal and satisfactory reason, by virtue of the authority vested in me under the Constitution and laws of the state of Texas, hereby revoke the parole of the said Jewell Redwine, and direct that he be again taken into custody and taken to and confined in the State Penitentiary until the expiration of his full term of sentence.

"In testimony whereof I have hereunto signed my name officially and caused the seal of state to be hereon impressed at the city of Austin, Texas, this the 1st day of July, A. D. 1921.

                  "[Seal]             Pat M. Neff
                                       "Governor of Texas
                "S. L. Staples, Secretary of State."
                

On July 2, 1921, the Board of Prison Commissioners of this state made the following order:

"Office of Board of Prison Commissioners.

                           "Huntsville, Texas, July 2, 1921
                

"There coming on for consideration certain proclamations made and issued by the Governor of the state of Texas, under date of July 1, 1921, duly attested by the Secretary of State, revoking paroles heretofore granted to the following named convicts and directing that said convicts be again taken into custody and confined in the State Penitentiary, each until the expiration of his respective sentence, the names of the convicts whose paroles were so revoked and the dates of issuance of such paroles being as follows, to wit:

                  Name of Convict.           Date Paroled.
                Jewell Redwine...........November 25, 1920.
                J. W. Roberts............December 17, 1920.
                Jewell Garrett...........December 22, 1920.
                Jim Carson...............November 28, 1920.
                W. McCornico.............January 21, 1920.
                

"It further appearing that the above-named convicts have not completed serving the sentences heretofore passed upon them, that they are not now in custody nor confined in the penitentiary in pursuance of said sentences, and, their paroles having been revoked, that they are legally bound to complete the serving of such sentences, it is therefore unanimously resolved and ordered by the Board of Prison Commissioners of the state of Texas that each of said convicts be retaken in custody and returned to the penitentiary to complete his respective term in accordance with the order, judgment and sentence of the court on file; it being hereby further unanimously ordered that such warrants, orders, notices or instructions as may be legally necessary be forwarded to the sheriffs of the various counties in which such paroled convicts are now...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Rose v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • November 12, 1987
    ...... that mentioned in the constitutional provision with reference to the remission of fines and forfeitures and with reference to treason." Ex parte Nelson, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 570, 209 S.W. 148 (1919) 1 and Ex parte Redwine, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 83, 236 S.W. 96 (1922) (any part of parole law wherein clemency ......
  • Ex parte Giles
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • December 5, 1973
    .......         This is true because any statute which in any wise abridges or infringes upon the power granted to the Governor by Article IV, Sec. 11, would be unconstitutional, unless sustainable under some other constitutional provision. See Ex parte Redwine, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 83, 236 S.W. 96 (1922). When the power of clemency has been conferred by the Constitution, it cannot be exercised by the Legislature. Ex parte Miers, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 592, 64 S.W.2d 778 (1933). See also Gilderbloom v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 471, 272 S.W.2d 106 (1954); Waggoner v. State, ......
  • State ex rel. Smith v. Blackwell
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • October 10, 1973
    ...... See Ex parte Miers, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 592, 64 S.W.2d 778, 780 (1933). History teaches us that for many years Texans placed almost complete pardoning power in the ... Ex parte Redwine, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 83, 236 S.W. 96 (1922). When the power of clemency has been conferred by the Constitution, it cannot be exercised by the Legislature. ......
  • Ex Parte Davenport
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • November 2, 1927
    ......See 20 Ruling Case Law, p. 552, § 35; also section 36. See Ex parte Redwine, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 236 S. W. 96; Ex parte Frazier, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 475, 239 S. W. 972; 20 Ruling Case Law, p. 551, § 34; Hunnicutt v. State, 18 Tex. App. 519, 51 Am. Rep. 330, 498; Rosson v. State, 23 Tex. App. 289, 4 S. W. 897; 29 Cyc. of Law & Proc. p. 1572; Battistelli v. State, 141 Tenn. 565, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT