In re Strickland

• Decision Date: 01 March 1889
• Docket Number: 10,340
• Citation: 41 La.Ann. 324,6 So. 577
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: IN RE HARDY STRICKLAND AND A. J. ALFORD APPLYING FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR BAIL

6 So. 577

41 La.Ann. 324

IN RE HARDY STRICKLAND AND A. J. ALFORD APPLYING FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR BAIL

No. 10,340

Supreme Court of Louisiana

March 1, 1889

APPEAL from the Sixteenth District Court, Parish of St. Helena. Brame, J.

W. F Kernan, for the Relators.

OPINION

POCHE J.

The applicants, who are held under a charge for murder, have had a preliminary examination, at their request, before the district judge having jurisdiction over the case, and they were remanded without the benefit of bail.

In their present application they rely on the evidence heard by the district judge, which is brought up under the certificate of the clerk of the District Court. They aver that the testimony would at most make out a case of manslaughter which is a bailable offense; hence they "charge that said decision of the said F. D. Brame, Judge of said District Court, on the facts disclosed on said preliminary examination is erroneous, and deprives petitioners of a right guaranteed to them by the Constitution."

Although the proceeding purports to be an application to our original jurisdiction, a careful consideration of the petition shows conclusively that the real intention of the applicants is to obtain at our hands a review of the action of the district judge in refusing to admit them to bail.

The basis of the relief sought here is his alleged error in concluding, from the facts disclosed at the preliminary examination, that the nature of the offense with which they are charged was not bailable.

And the means afforded us for the relief sought, are by considering exclusively the identical evidence which had been submitted to the district judge.

The evidence thus submitted is not brought up by consent, but as a matter of right, the consideration of which, should under the law, lead this court to a conclusion different from that followed by the district judge. It is therefore apparent that the proceeding, although called by another name, is nothing but a disguised appeal.

Now under a proper construction of the constitutional provisions which vests this court, in specified cases, with the power of entertaining applications for writs of habeas corpus, it appears that the power is one of original and not of appellate jurisdiction.

It is contained in Article 87 of the Constitution of 1879, which reads; "The Supreme Court, and each of the judges thereof, shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus at the instance of all persons in actual custody in cases where it may have appellate jurisdiction."

The same power is conferred to the judges of the courts of appeal by Article 104, which reads: "The judges of the courts of appeal shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus at the instance of all persons in actual custody, within their respective circuits."

And the power is likewise vested in judges of the District Courts. Article 115 provides that: "The district judges shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus at the instance of all persons in actual custody in their respective districts."

Nothing in the language of the Constitution suggests the thought, or can justify the conclusion, that in the exercise of their respective powers in that connection, any of the judges referred to, are inferior to others, in the matter of the conclusions which they may reach. It is quite plain that the power is concurrent among all the judges therein referred to and enumerated.

The only difference is that in the case of the Supreme Court and of each of the judges thereof, the jurisdiction may extend to all parts of the State, whereas in the case of the others, the power can be exercised only within the territory embraced in their respective circuits or districts.

The Constitution contains no provision which even contemplates the right or authority of any court or judge to review the findings of any court or judge in the disposition of matters connected with a writ of habeas corpus.

The Constitutions of this State of 1845, 1852 and 1868 each contained a provision precisely similar in terms to Article 89 of the present Constitution. And in construing those provisions the Supreme Court has uniformly held that the jurisdiction thereby vested in that court was original and not appellate. Ex parte Mitchell 1 Ann. 413; State ex rel. Cook vs. Keeper of Parish Prison, 15 Ann. 347; State of Louisiana vs. Fenderson, 28 Ann. 82.

There is no attempt in the present case to invoke the aid of our supervision jurisdiction, and it is plain that it could not be applied to the complaint which these proceedings involve.

Under similar provisions in the Constitutions and laws of other States of the Union, the same construction has prevailed. From decisions rendered on the point, respectable authors have culled the following principle:

"In some of the States the Supreme Court, the superior district courts, and...