Case ID: sw_261/html/1030-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte BREMER.
    (No. 8681.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 7, 1924.)
    Habeas corpus <&wkey;32 — Indeterminate Sentence Law not affected by Governor’s abolition of board of pardon advisers.
    Indeterminate Sentence Law was not rendered inoperative by Governor’s abolition of board of pardon advisers, so as to entitle prisoner to release on writ of habeas corpus after serving minimum term.
    Original application by Sidney Bremer for writ of habeas corpus.
    Petition denied.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Relator was convicted of forgery, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for seven years.

The trial judge, in obedience to the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Acts 33d Leg. 1st C. S. c. 5), pronounced sentence for not less than two nor more than seven years, two years being the minimum punishment for the offense of forgery. Relator has presented an orignal application for habeas corpus to this court, in which he alleges that he has served the minimum term of two years, and is seeking relief at our hands from further service under such sentence. His petition seems to proceed upon the theory that the Indeterminate Sentence Law has been rendered inoperative by the action of the Governor of the state in abolishing the board of pardon advisers, and that for this reason relator is entitled to some relief.

The Indeterminate Sentence Law in no way depends upon the hoard of pardon advisers. That law provides that the wardens, sergeants, or guards shall keep a record of prisoners, and that the wardens shall make report thereof to the hoard of prison commissioners, who in turn shall make reports and recommendations to the Governor. The latter may or may not, as in his judgment seems wise, carry out such recommendations. That the Governor chooses not to call to his aid a board of pardon advisers in the discharge of his executive duties in no way affects the matter. This court is without power to act in the premises. If relator has a meritorious plea, it must be addressed to the executive, and not the judicial department of the state government.

The petition is denied.