Jones v. Morrow
Decision Date | 15 January 1942 |
Docket Number | 35453. |
Citation | 121 P.2d 219,154 Kan. 589 |
Parties | JONES v. MORROW, Sheriff, et al. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1942.
Syllabus by the Court.
An executive order of Governor of Louisiana for release of one serving sentence in Louisiana state penitentiary from state officials' custody to serve sentence in federal penitentiary on condition that he be returned to state penitentiary if released from federal prison before expiration of sentence to state penitentiary did not constitute "reprieve", "parole", or "pardon", but was in nature of "commutation of sentence", so that prisoner violated no condition attached to release in refusing to return to Louisiana after serving federal sentence and was not "fugitive from justice" of such state as required to authorize his extradition from Kansas. Act La. No. 14 of 1934, 1st Ex Sess., § 2; Const.La.1921, art. 5, § 10.
The real nature of an act of clemency by governor of state is not changed by what it is called, but its effect is determined by what it is.
The record on appeal in a habeas corpus case examined and held:
1. Respondents perfected an appeal only from the judgment which discharged petitioner from their custody.
2. Respondents requested no additional findings of fact and the facts as found by the district court are admitted.
3. The order of the governor of Louisiana, pursuant to which petitioner was released from custody, while serving his state sentence in the state penitentiary of Louisiana, and was delivered to federal authorities and by the latter removed to the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, was in effect a commutation of his state sentence.
4. The admitted facts do not compel or require a reversal of the judgment.
Appeal from District Court, Leavenworth County; James H. Wendorff Judge.
Proceeding by Lester Jones, alias Joe Payne, for a writ of habeas corpus to Ted C. Morrow, Sheriff of Leavenworth County, and others. From a judgment ordering petitioner's discharge from respondents' custody, respondents appeal.
Jay S Parker, Atty. Gen., Jay Kyle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Colonel H Boone, Deputy Co. Atty., of Leavenworth, and M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., of New Orleans, La., for appellants.
Lucien B. Rutherford, of Leavenworth, for appellee.
This is an appeal in a habeas corpus case. The proceeding was originally brought in the probate court of Leavenworth county. The decision in that court was against petitioner and he appealed to the district court. The latter court found petitioner was illegally imprisoned and detained and ordered his immediate discharge from the custody of respondents. Respondents have appealed.
The district court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. There is no objection by either of the parties to the findings of fact. No additional findings of fact were requested. The decision must, therefore, turn upon the findings as made, which were:
"Sometime, during the month of March, 1937, Lester Jones entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Louisiana to a
charge of violating the Dyer Act [18 U. S.C.A. § 408] and was, by the court placed on probation without sentencing;
court for inspection by the court and among said documents there was no copy, certified or otherwise, of any reprieve or parole or other act of clemency granted to said Lester Jones by the Governor of the State of Louisiana, nor was there any copy, certified or otherwise, of any order revoking any reprieve, parole or other act of clemency;
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jackson v. Kaiser
... ... United States, ... 67 F.2d 4; White, Warden, v. Pearlman, 42 F.2d 788; ... Smith v. Swope, 91 F.2d 260; In re ... Jennings, 118 F. 479; Jones v. Morrow, 154 Kan ... 588, 121 P.2d 219; People v. Bartley, 383 Ill. 437, 50 N.E.2d ... J ... E. Taylor, Attorney General, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Gegenfurtner v. Granquist
...are: In re Hess, 5 Kan.App. 763, 48 P. 596; People ex rel. Barrett v. Bartley, 383 Ill. 437, 50 N.E.2d 517, 147 A.L.R. 935; In re Johes, 154 Kan. 589, 121 P.2d 219; Ex parte Guy, 41 Okl.Cr. 1, 269 P. 782; State v. Saunders, 288 Mo. 640, 232 S.W. 973; Ex parte Middaugh, 40 Okl.Cr. 280, 268 P......
-
Justice v. Lockett, s. 38957
...discharging the prisoners is a final order, and as such is, of course, appealable.' Citing G.S.1949, 60-3302. See, also, In re Jones, 154 Kan. 589, 121 P.2d 219, and Powell v. Turner, 167 Kan. 524, 207 P.2d Counsel for appellant point out that no motion for a new trial was filed in the tria......
-
Thompson v. Bannan
...sometimes considered to be in effect a pardon of the remainder of the sentence. Ex parte Guy, 41 Okl.Cr. 1, 269 P. 782. In In re Jones, 154 Kan. 589, 121 P.2d 219, under similar facts it was held to be a commutation of The recent case of Jones v. Rayborn, 346 S.W.2d 743 (Kentucky), falls in......