# !.

OFFICE OF T’HE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRXAS A#bnN 

### e-C.- uwuIvou-
. i
I

.‘

. .~ , ,. * 

### 430



## ._ Hoaorablof.hr.

## Btrawn county

miorm~ dllao7 Ooont7 :- -AI---y Rapmdri~e, Teur '

.Eonsrabls I. ‘II.Straws, NSe 2

Artiols 2989, Rotlsed 01~11 Statutes o? Tams, reads la part:

Vo person shall be rligibls to any state, oouat7;.pnolmt, or aunlo~ml orfloe la this State, unless he shall be slYlble to hold o??foe under the Oonstitutloa o? th s Stats.

. , .a There would ssamto be ao doubt thatthe expression -other hl2h orlmeswuould lnoludo the orlae oi burglary. Csrtainly any orlmu of ths samsgrads as the l numerated

ones,, namsl I’ islonles, is oamprohsadeaby this provision o? the. coast tution. In Ro.88f. CrOfUtt, 60 Atl. 90; 64 COIL 574, Itwas held that ths words 

### l hkh Qrlmor were intsnded to be syIionymou8 with the word dorlmen as u6ed in the ?edsral Comtltutlon, sad were su??lolsnt to- inolude a oonspinop, whethsr it was’s felony or a misdemeanor. This question has aot been pamed oa by the oourts o? Texas, but we hats no hesitanoy in holdlog that one whohas bseo oomloted or the orhs or burglary

rbd~a8urisd br the aon8titcrtion 0r Texas rror holdln(l publio

. Amore perplulng questionarisen In the use of ths tern aOOnfloteflR, as $0 whether suoh term wouMiinoluds the situatloa growing out o? the suspsadsd ssatenoe law o? Texas.

Artiole 970of ths Code o? CrIBlEa Proosdure o? !Puas provides that whsre a suspenbed seateaoe has been granted *neither the verdiot o? ooariotloa aor the jud&mmt entered thereon shall beoome ?imal.* Yorsovsr, it has bssa hold that whore the looused reoelres a suspsnded ssntsaos, the $dgmeat is not 

### rind end oennot ba appealed iron. Sons8 1. Stats, 281 0. w. 1072; B~SIYIW V. State, 164 8. w. 840; Bill v. Ststs, 243 s. w. 882.

Horsror, In oonstruing the rorde*oonrlotrd of a rsloay- la the Suppeded Sentmoe Lpw, the Court or Crlmlasl 

### Appeal8 or Tsxss in Hill v. state, 

### supra, dsolarsd:

nit’ seems oloar

. . . that by the use or ths

., ;,

. . !’ rA 

# ‘-’ ‘- 432 

# m

Honorable Jams8W. Stram, Fags 3

the rerdiot of a jurr finding ths l ooused 6ullt.y of somefelony. The term *oontiotlon* is used in many of our statutes in auoh the samssense. Ouroonsluslsn from the above statsmsnt that & :ooatioted a? a felony* whose sontsnoe la suspsnded is within the oompreheosion ot this statute, whsnit turd the expression eoonvioted of a felony*.* The question, asal?estly, Is whether the use of the word ~ooavloted* in ssotion 2 0r Article Ia a? the constitution mesas a verdiOf or guilty or s tins1 ooavlotioa.

The latter oosst?uqtlon has been $lren the use of this word In the statute (shoe urnded) wbloh madsa person whohad bsea ooariotsd of a felony insoapstent as e ritasrs. see ~spi~~ss v. State, 165 6. W. 208; Sbonds v. State, 178 s. i. 1064; Colsmanv. state, U7 8. x. 481; Arola1. Otats, 9 s. w. 665. .I-~ wherean, la Qoss v. State, 298 S. VI. 865, it was said:

*TheConstitutloa hss rsstod in the Ocrsrnor the

. . . powsr to oomute the plnlsbmsnt *&or ooarlotion~.

see Coastitutloa a? Toxss, rrtlole IV, para. 11. while in samesense, ths term *oonvlotioa* applies to a fins1 jud#mOntof @litI8 that tena, as used la our Constitution msansa rard at of *guilty*, and a pardon granted pondlng appea~lld.

. . ." (Underssorlng ltalios) TOthe sameSffeot is DukeT. State, 291 S. W. 539, wherein it was,raid:

*Conoernlxq the moaningor the term 'oonrlotion*, muohis to be found in ths law books. Aooordiag to the weight of the preoedents, it seems, in its relation to the power to pudoa, that the tbm *oonviotion* ‘refers to the rerdiot of *guilty* by a &ry ati Is not rsstrloted to a 

### rind Judgmenton suoh rerdlot.a AB l xhsustlre dl~oussion or tbo meaning or the word ~OOn~iotion*, as usad in tha Massaohusstts Constitution, iu found in the oaso or Cmnwealth v. Lookwod, 109Mass. 539, 12Am. Rep. 699. After a rsvisw of tho authorltles In wand, .f-- Uassaohusetta, and elsewhere, the oourt oonoludod:Honorable J4mes W. strawa, Fwge 4

*The ordinary logal meaningof *oonviotion* whenused to designate a partioular atags o? a OrimiB61proseoutloa triable by jury, is the ooafeaalon b? the aooused in open oourt, or the rerdiot retumed agaiB6t hia by the jury, whloh asoortai~s and publishes tho faot or hi8 guilti while *judgment* or *asnten0s~ la the appr~prlats word to denote ths aotion of the oourt, bs?orr whloh trial Is had, dsolarlng tha oonsequenoes to the oonvlot of the fact thus saosrtaiBod.W See also the Oaaes o? State v. Garrett, 188 S. iV.58, 136 Tean. 617; Parker v. State, 103 TSBB. 647, a3 3. w. 1092; State 1. Alexander, 7634 C. 23$, 22 Am.Rep. 673; People v. Marsh, 125Yioh. 410 84 lf. w. 472, 51 L. R. A. 461; GIlmore 0. State, S Okla. crlm. 639, 108Pao. 416.

Xelthero? the foregoing oasoa related to the partloular, or a like, ooBatitutioBsl proviaioa:~ pertaining to ~udiri04ti0n for ottioe 46 round In sootlon 2 0r Artiole xv1
,-, Ofth$++TWaS

COBStitUtiOB. $' It la notad that Seotion 2'0? Artiole XVI dlsqualiflea udonthe samebasis a person Smlnenjoying the right of suffrage. fB the 06.0 o? Aldridge 1. Hrunlin, 184 S. W. 602, It was oontsnded that a toter was dIsquali?Ied whohad been oonvioted of a ielony and given a auspeoded aentenoe. The court held that the parann wss not a qusllflod voter beosuae the Suspsnded Sentenoe Lawunder whioh he reoelred his suapsnelon of sentence waaunoonatltutlona1. Xe do not believe that a neoesaary infereaoe from the oaae Is that the voter would have been qusliiied, notwith.taBd%ng his OWYiOtiOBo? a felOBy, if the suspensioa o? his sentsnoe hadbeen under a oonatItutiona1 SuapendodSentenoe Law. It la nor6 roaaonable to believe that the oourt only needed to oonnlder the question apart from the suepension of aentonoe in view o? the prior holding8 o? the Texan oourts that the then in l xiatenoe Suapended Sentenoe Lawwas unoonatitutiona1. It was BOtBeoeaaery ror the oourt to pass uponthe queatlon o? ths qualllloationa o? a person to vote whoma under a suspended aentenoe srldng out o? a oonatltutlonal l uapendedaentenoq ,lew. In Snodgraaa v. Stats, 150 S. W. 162, the Court of Criminal hppSSl8 held the SuspendedSantsnoe Lawenaoted by tha 32nd Leglelature unoonatltutional a6 "clearly in ooutra-Honorable Jams8W. Strewn, Page 6

vention of the provision granting to the Governor alone tho poweren4 u thority to remit the punishment for orims when 4 parson hai been legally ad udgled guilty, end his puaIshmeat asssssed, and also Seot1oa 2.01 Artlole lb, whsrela it Is provided thatmeaadiudaed guilty of certain offenses shall ?or?sit oertaln r ghts and privilegea.W

In Baker, v. State, I.568. N. WS, the san oourt upheld the oonstitutlonallty o? Senate Bill Ho. 5 smaaed by the 3Srd Legislature upon the follodng prOPO8ltlOn:

*Thepassage of this law, misnameda bauspensioa o? rantmoe* 2'is a le illative Aot, parsed Within the soope of tha powerw hfoh they and they alone possess, to iti by law the punishment 0r any and all penal OSrenses. Itdoes not l uthorlze a jurr nor the oourts to suspeadr.~:any

law of this Btate, but the Legislature by law has‘provided that iB &ilsa OoBtiBgenOieS no punishmsnt shall be suffered ?or the iirat **lio~tioB** o? oertala provlslons o? the Psnal Code.*
-. jr' The theoryo? the OOUrtin upholding the present sdapended Senteaoe Lawwas, briefly, that the Legislature had -merely oonatltuted 4 suspended sentsnoe, In certain oontlageaoiea, the pUBi8hBt **iOr** a **YiO~BtiOn of**  oertain prOli6iOBS **Of** tho Psnal Code. As said .iB Fhrrish **1.** State, 71 9. N. (2d) 274, 276: -while the auvnded Esntenoe LawIs purely a psnalty statute.

. . .(I

Advertfag to the Baod&rass oars, wherein the old suspendedSentenoe Lawwanhold unoonstltutlonal, It is hlP ly aignltioant that the effortto upholdthis law am oonst tutional, beoause not in ooatraventlon o? the provisIon 0r the Constltutlon grahtlag to ths Oovernor alon the pcmor end authority to remit punlalmeat ror orime, 14s groundeduponths proposition that the rsoipient of a suspsnded sentence hadnot been "eonvlotedw, had sUffered no dlsabllity ?Or?eltsd no olvll rights, and oonaequsntly .the l S?eot of ths iaw was not to oloths a person or agenoy,otherth6B the aolerBo~, with power and authority to ramlt the punisham~~for orlme. In repudiating thin oontentlon the sourt held that the uordmooaliotfonw appearing In Seotlon 11 of Artlols IV of the aoastltutioa mesas the verdlot o? guilty pronouaoed by 4 JUrI' the ten not l mbreolng tb satanoe or a tinal judg8ent am OOBradlstlngulshed thererror. Moreover,

\

.

### 435

Honorable J-08 ‘8. Strewn, Pago6

the court polntsd out *an4 no one would qurstlon, It under thla Aot, a parson tm4boon triad an4conriotad, his mentanoe aua~1en484,It It ahoul&bo attempta to try himagain ror the aamaoffense,a p&e of l utrefoia ooaviotlon would ba sustained by any court In tha land, ror It would ba etldent that he had been triadand oonviotod of tha acmeofr0n80.- AndIn CoonV. Stats, 243 8. W. 914, it was daclaradr *was the of the a

udgmantgrenting l ppal&nt the benefit *subpen od Santonoe Law’ upon oonrlotlon undar the tlrat ipdlotmeat .auoha &algmmt as would support a plae of Sbrarer oonrlotlon? re are 

### not unmlndrul **0r** the rule that a oon?lotlon to be available In bar of another ~oaaoution for the 8emo‘orranae must be a arim oonvlotion* (oitatlon or eases)

. . . 10the aenaa that no appeal ia pending thrrafrom, but no appeal la allows4 where-a l entanoe la suspended at a derandant* request.

. . . It la true the oonrlotlon la .~ .-.. not final In the aonaa that the state oan enforor punlahi mant **by** oonfinement in the penltontlary, but It is final in that the State la not permlttad to take any further aotlon in the matter exoept upon a nubaoquentoonrlotion 

### rot anothsrrelony.

. . . ThOapplloetlon of the law whloh prevents a subsequent proaeoutlon ror thr aamooffense where thara her been a rormaroonrlotlon neoaaaarily loads to construing a oonrlotlon with a suspended esntenoa as *rlnel* in the sense thet It will support a plea 0r rormer oonvlotlon.~ Relating apoolrioally to saotlon 2 0r Artiole xv1 **0r** the Constitution, tha oourt further ha14 in the Snodgraaa case, aupra: *But there la enother section or our oonatltutlon appellant aeamato bare wholly ororlookab. Seotlon 2 orArt101016 ocsmui4a tha Leglslaturo to l neot oertain laws in the following languagrz *Lawsahall be ~~48to l

xolude 

### iron otiloo, serving on juries, , an4 rrom the rlght 0r auirra IMY herealtargp, oonriord Of robbery, perjury, forgery, & a those whomayhevo been or
or other high orlmea.* TheLagialatura In obe4lanoa to(, this oaamand, has passed laws 

### in acoordanoa with

its protialona, but this AOtot the Lo aSthough a parson had bren rdjubgad lalatur~, gufltyor rorgem, or brlberr, if appellant*8oonatruotlon la oorraot, and they aufrar no diubllit~ by reason of auoh oonriotion, would ba In dlmot bonfllot with this provlslon 6f thr tIonatltutlolr an6 wouldtheretore ba void.* 

### 436

Eonorablo fuaa 18. Strawn, Nga 9

ulmt doom the oourt moan‘b tbl a laaguagot Qloarlr tbat If tha Suapandad Santenoo I&r dereata or nulllrlra or oonfllota with SOOtion 2 of ArtlOU XVI OS the Conafltutlon,~lt would bovoid. This o oafliot,

l ooording

tothe oourt, would result ii 8

### poraai uhc“lathe raalpiaat of al urponbod la ateaoa would not

### rutfar the diaablllt~ pronouaoed by t&a p+orlaloa OStha Coaatltutioa. la other words, as applied to soot&on 8 of Artiole lb of th8 Conatltutloa, ir baoauao or an4 u&or the &apenQod ~aotmoa &awa parsoa oould hold’oiflor, aarva on jurloa, aad rote notwlthatandlng his hating baoa l djudgob guilty or tha o&as meatlonod, baoauea his asntonoa had b an ,- ruapan@d, would not the l fieot or the duapandad z~entrnoa ?au be tOWeat the purpose of the Conatltutlon? Whnroaa, if the word *OonviotoQa in Yeotioa 8 ol Artlola 16 or the constitution bo’held to moanthe laoortaiumont and publioatlon of guilt, rathar th8n a final oonrlotlon, tha 6laabllitlaa pronounoad by tha Constitution would be l urforad an4 tha spirit and purpose or saotion 8 0r Irtiola 16 is not violated by the tiuapwhdad l

antaao~ law. It la noteworthy that the oourt in tha Baker oasa, upholding the preaait aiaapendad amtenon law, 414 not advert to taotlon 8 or ArtioIe $8.or the Constitution; although I Judge Earpar was the author of tha opinionand also Or tha i opinion la the Saodgaaa oaao, wherein be oondamnadthe old law as rl0lstlve or Saotloa g 0r Art1010 1G.

The ai~nlfioan~a of this lies in the reasoning adopt04 by Judge Earper in tha Baker 0868, namaly, that the now law did not l

uthorlza a l

auapenalon of aontenoo* but provided fora dirrerentor no puaiahmaat for a flret rlolation. This reaaonlng, it la baliarad, praaupposaa a *oonvlotloP for the ofronae charged rot the obvious roaaoa tbutno Eattotir punlahmeat **ba** light, as a l uapan4o4 santenoo, or @mater, as a penitentiary aeatanoa, nonathaleoa thermmust bo a OOnriOLion, l

lae the punlhmaat aurrarad would bo violattire Or fuadamental law.

t! The roregoing dlaousaioa domonatrataa, or 00 -cli.rthe question bsroro us la not Iran mm doubt, an4 la Ut;t- ,



# I .Hoaorabla JaawaU. Strawn, Faga8

an open on0 in Texas. Weare oonetralntid to the opinion however, that it oomporta with the log10 anployed in the oaaaa wahare rovlawed, partioularly thoee treating of tha oonatitutlonallty of tha 8uapandod 8&onoo laws, en4with tha rplrlt and purpose of, ths Oonatitutioo, to rula that the rord “oonviotaQ*

In Seot1on.Z of Article 16 of the Comtltutfon maan&and hmbraooa tha l tatua~ resulting from tha applloatlon of the ruapanQa4 l

entenoo &NW

OSTexas to a ver4lOt aaoertalaing and publlahlng tha guilt or a parson ohargad wlth a orlminal orrenaa.
bur It fbllowr, ,&or our.holding that thr otranaa or flary le a -high orimo* wlthia the purview or Saotlon 2 or Art 01s 16 of the Oonatifution or ‘Taxa@, thatit la the opinion ot this Department that a parson whohas bean oonrlota4 of burglary an4aaaeaaed a two yearaua~nde4 aantanoa whloh is at111 in fores and l fieot la not eligible to the orrloe or Juetloa of the Peaomunder the Conatltutlon and statutes of
,- Taxaa...~~

-.: /.; i Toura vary truly ATTORNEY

OlQJEML

07TEXAS

BY

zcs: BBB A~FROVIDNOV 22, 1940