Ex Parte Redwine
Citation | 236 S.W. 96 |
Decision Date | 19 October 1921 |
Docket Number | (No. 6473.) |
Parties | Ex parte REDWINE. |
Court | Court 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.
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:
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:
On July 2, 1921, the Board of Prison Commissioners of this state made the following order:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rose v. State
...... 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
....... 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
...... 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
......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, ......