State v. Selman
| Citation | 12 S.W.2d 368,157 Tenn. 641 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. v. SELMAN. REDWINE |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1928 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Hamilton County; Chas. W. Lusk, Judge.
Petition for habeas corpus by the State, on the relation of Luther Redwine, against Thos. O. Selman. Petition was dismissed, and petitioner appeals. Reversed, and prisoner ordered discharged.
Geo. W Chamlee, of Chattanooga, for appellant.
Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The writ of habeas corpus was issued upon relation of Redwine charging that he was unlawfully restrained of his liberty by the sheriff of Hamilton county. The trial judge, upon hearing, dismissed the petition and remanded the prisoner to custody.
It is set forth in the petition that in 1926 relator fled from a situation of peonage in the state of Georgia and came to Chattanooga. The manager of the plantation from which he came had him arrested in this state upon a charge of going armed in Georgia, and relator relying upon his innocence voluntarily returned to Georgia.
It is charged that after he was taken into custody and upon the return to Georgia those in charge assaulted and beat him and carried him to a county where he had no friends, caused him to be tried and sentenced to a year's confinement in the chain gang, and after his confinement he escaped and returned to Tennessee. Upon return to this state the petition recites that he was arrested upon an illegal warrant and deprived of his liberty. It is charged that the warrant issued by the Governor of Tennessee is void because based upon a requisition from the Governor of Georgia unattended by a warrant, indictment, affidavit, or other charge setting forth the commission of a crime, and because he is detained upon a warrant purporting to have been issued by the Governor of Tennessee when the Governor was absent from the state.
The court will not, in a habeas corpus proceeding, inquire into the guilt or innocence of the fugitive. Chase v. State (Fla.) 113 So. 103, 54 A. L. R. 271. The inquiry must be confined to the legality of the rendition by the Governor of Tennessee, and of the requisition by the Governor of Georgia. Article 4, § 2, of the Constitution of the United States declares:
"A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime."
By sections 5278, 5279, U.S. Revised Statutes; U.S. Criminal Code, 18 USCA §§ 662, 663, Congress gave effect to the foregoing provisions of the Constitution by enacting that:
"Whenever the executive authority of any state or territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any state or territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any state or territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the state or territory from whence the person so charged has fled, it shall be the duty of the executive authority of the state or territory to which such person has fled to cause him to be arrested and secured, and to cause notice of the arrest to be given to the executive authority making such demand."
Our statutes carried into 7321 et seq., Shannon's Code, passed in aid of the federal statutes, authorized the Governor to issue a warrant for the apprehension of the fugitive in compliance with the demand of the Governor of another state.
Referring to the duty of the Governor of the asylum state upon demand for rendition of the fugitive, the United States Supreme Court said in Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U.S. 80, 6 S.Ct. 291, 29 L.Ed. 544:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Brown v. Grosch
...... proceedings, and also in such proceedings may raise the. question of fact, but before his release is justified, as. pointed out above, he must show beyond a reasonable doubt. that he is not guilty. See State v. Hackett, 161. Tenn. 602, 33 S.W.2d 422; State v. Selman, 157 Tenn. 641, 12 S.W.2d 368; State ex rel. Van Scoyoc v. State, 171 Tenn. 357, 103 S.W.2d 26. . . The. third and last question is the most serious of the three. raised in this record wherein it is urged on behalf of the. relator that since he stands charged with the ......
-
Johnson v. Scarborough, Civ. A. No. 646.
...certiorari denied in 1940, 311 U.S. 662, 61 S.Ct. 19, 85 L.Ed. 425; Ex parte Law, 1911, 2 Ala. App. 257, 56 So. 79; State ex rel. Redwine v. Selman, 1928, 157 Tenn. 641, 12 S. W.2d 368." 135 A.L.R. 975; see also, Munsey v. Clough, 196 U.S. 364, 25 S.Ct. 282, 49 L.Ed. The executive warrant o......
-
State ex rel. Groover v. Payne
...The Court cannot inquire into the guilt or innocence of the prisoner where relator is under arrest on a rendition warrant. State ex rel. Redwine v. Selman, supra. State ex rel. Lea v. Brown, 166 Tenn. 669, 683, 64 S.W.2d 841, 91 A.L.R. 1246, it was expressly held that this Court is without ......
-
State ex rel. Webster v. Moeller
......This case does not say,. however, that the governor must sign the same if he has. ordered it to be issued. Of interest also are the following. cases: Ex parte Pelinski (Mo. Sup.) 213 S.W. 809; Ex parte. Flournoy, 310 Mo. 355, 359, 275 S.W. 923; State ex rel. Redwine v. Selman, 157 Tenn. 641, 646, 12 S.W.2d 368;. In re Craig, 7 Ohio N.P.(N.S.) 307. Because of the. hearing that was had and the governor's direction to Ann. Egan to reinstate the warrant, the instant case does not. involve a situation where the governor delegated his power as. such, but presents merely ......