State ex rel. Norfleet v. Swafford

• Decision Date: 01 February 1947
• Citation: 198 S.W.2d 1007,184 Tenn. 340
• Parties: STATE ex rel. NORFLEET v. SWAFFORD, Warden. STATE ex rel. BEARD v. SAME.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

198 S.W.2d 1007

184 Tenn. 340

STATE ex rel. NORFLEET v. SWAFFORD, Warden.

STATE ex rel. BEARD v. SAME.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

February 1, 1947

Error to Circuit Court, Davidson County; Weldon B. White, Judge.

Separate habeas corpus proceedings by state on the relation of Percy Norfleet and on relation of Willie Beard against Glenn Swafford, Warden, which were heard together.There were judgments dismissing the petitions, and the relators bring error.

Affirmed.

Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Warden.

FARRELL Special Judge.

These two cases were heard together by consent of counsel.They are habeas corpus proceedings brought in the Circuit Court of Davidson County, by which the relators seek their release from the custody of the warden upon the ground that they were sentenced under void indictments.

The Circuit Court dismissed both petitions and relators bring their cases here for review.

Not only are the facts in both cases the same, but they are undisputed.

The relators were arrested September 5, 7, 1938, charged with the robbery of certain persons on the night of September 3, 1938 in the City of Memphis.On the 27th of the same month joint indictments were returned against both by the Grand Jury of Shelby County, charging them with the commission of said robberies.On the same day each relator was likewise indicted for carrying a pistol.

Later the attention of the Criminal Court judge was called to the fact that each defendant was probably under the age of 17 at the time of the commission of the alleged offenses and upon investigation he ascertained such to be the fact and thereupon transferred the cases to the Juvenile Court of Shelby County for further proceedings.

In the Juvenile Court a hearing was had and the judge of that court found both defendants were incorrigible and dangerous to the welfare of the community, and accordingly remanded them to the Criminal Court to be there tried for their offenses in the same manner as if they had been 17 years of age when their said offenses were committed.

Upon such remand, the relators were arraigned upon the original indictments and were both represented by counsel.No exception was taken to the indictments by pleas in abatement or otherwise, and both defendants pleaded guilty and were sentenced.

The contention of the relators is that a hearing before the Juvenile Court should have preceded any action by the Grand Jury and they allege that the indictments in question under which they were tried and sentenced were nullities and all proceedings thereunder were void.Relators insist that the Juvenile Court had not surrendered the jurisdiction conferred it by law, at the time of the return of the indictments, and that said Juvenile Court had exclusive jurisdiction of the cases.

On behalf of the State, it is asserted that the return of the indictments in the Criminal Court was not such an assumption of jurisdiction, on the facts, as to offend the provisions of the juvenile law.

The pertinent provisions of that law are as follows:

Code Section 10269 states that the juvenile law applies only to children who have not reached their seventeenth birthday.

Code Section 10275 gives the judge of the Juvenile Court original, exclusive jurisdiction of all cases coming within the purview of the law.

Code Section 10279 provides that any reputable person knowing of a dependent or delinquent child, may file with the Clerk of the Juvenile Court a petition in writing setting forth the facts; and subsequent sections provide for the issuance of summons and bringing of such child before the Juvenile Court for trial upon such a petition.

Section 10295 is as follows:

'10295.Delinquent child guilty of crime, and found to be incorrigible, etc., shall be remanded to proper court for trial.--Any child who shall have committed a misdemeanor or felony, and who shall have been found by the court to be a delinquent child within the meaning of this title and committed hereunder, and who shall thereafter be found by the court to be incorrigible and incapable of reformation or dangerous to the welfare of the community may, in the discretion of the court, be remanded to the proper court of the county in which such crime was committed, and be tried for such crime, and if found guilty thereof, be subject to judgment therefor in the same manner as if he had been seventeen years of age when such crime was committed.'

Section 10297 directs the Juvenile Judge, after hearing, to dismiss all causes wherein he believes the child has been guilty of the crime of rape or murder in the first or second degree and assume no further jurisdiction thereof than to remand the child to the sheriff to be dealt with as provided in the criminal laws.

Section 10298 is as follows:

'10298.Arrested child shall be brought before juvenile court, or be transferred to it by other courts or officials; Notice Continuation of trial.--When a child under the age of seventeen years is arrested, with or without a warrant, or upon a capias or other process issued from any criminal court, such a child shall, instead of being taken before a justice of the peace or police magistrate, or instead of being held to bail or incarcerated for...