!. 

OFFICE OF T’HE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRXAS 

A#bnN 

e-C.- uwuIvou- . 

i 

I 

.‘. .~ 

, 

,. 

* 430 

._ 

Hoaorablo f. 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 sl 

Y 

lble to hold o??foe under 

the Oonstitutloa o? th s Stats. . , .a 

There would ssam to be ao doubt that the expression 

-other hl2h orlmesw uould lnoludo the orlae oi burglary. Csrtainly any orlmu of ths sams grads as the l numer a ted ones,, 

namsl 

I’ 

islonles, is oamprohsadea by this provision o? the. 

coast tution. In Ro.88 f. CrOfUtt, 60 Atl. 90; 64 COIL 574, 

It was held that ths words l h k h 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 who has bseo oomloted or the orhs or burglary 

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

. 

A more perplulng question arisen 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 970 of 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 l ooused 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 Jams8 W. Stram, Fags 3 

the rerdiot of a jurr finding ths l ooused 6ullt.y 

of some felony. The term *oontiotlon* is used 

in many of our statutes in auoh the sams sense. 

Our oonsluslsn from the above statsmsnt that 

& :ooatioted a? a felony* whose sontsnoe la suspsnded is within the oompreheosion ot this statute, 

whsn it 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 mads a person 

who had 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; Colsman v. state, U7 8. x. 481; Arola 1. Otats, 

9 s. w. 665. 

.I-~ wherean, la Qoss v. State, 298 S. VI. 865, it was said: 

*The Constitutloa hss rsstod in the Ocrsrnor the 

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

see Coastitutloa a? Toxss, rrtlole IV, para. 11. 

while in same sense, ths term *oonvlotioa* applies to 

a fins1 jud#mOnt of @lit 

I8 

that tena, as used la our 

Constitution msans a rard at of *guilty*, and a pardon 

granted pondlng appea~lld. . . ." (Underssorlng 

ltalios) 

TO the same Sffeot is Duke T. State, 291 S. W. 539, 

wherein it was, raid: 

*Conoernlxq the moaning or the term 'oonrlotion*, 

muoh is 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 Judgment on 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, 109 Mass. 539, 

12 Am. 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 meaning of *oonviotion* 

when used to designate a partioular atags o? a 

OrimiB61 proseoutloa 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, 125 Yioh. 410 84 lf. w. 472, 51 L. R. A. 461; GIlmore 

0. State, S Okla. crlm. 639, 108 Pao. 416. 

Xelther o? 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 

,-, Of th$++TWaS COBStitUtiOB. 

$' It la notad that Seotion 2'0? Artiole XVI dlsqualiflea udon the same basis a person Smln enjoying 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 who had 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 Law under whioh he reoelred his suapsnelon of sentence waa unoonatltutlona1. Xe do not believe 

that a neoesaary infereaoe from the oaae Is that the voter 

would have been qusliiied, notwith.taBd%ng his OWYiOtiOB o? 

a felOBy, if the suspensioa o? his sentsnoe had been under a 

oonatItutiona1 Suapendod Sentenoe 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 Law was unoonatitutiona1. It was BOt Beoeaaery 

ror the oourt to pass upon the queatlon o? ths qualllloationa 

o? a person to vote who ma under a suspended aentenoe srldng 

out o? a oonatltutlonal l uapended aentenoq ,lew. 

In Snodgraaa v. Stats, 150 S. W. 162, the Court of 

Criminal hppSSl8 held the Suspended Santsnoe Law enaoted by 

tha 32nd Leglelature unoonatltutional a6 "clearly in ooutra- 
Honorable Jams8 W. Strewn, Page 6 

vention of the provision granting to the Governor alone tho 

power en4 u thority to remit the punishment for orims when 

4 parson hai been legally ad udgled guilty, end his puaIshmeat asssssed, and also Seot 1 oa 2.01 Artlole lb, whsrela it 

Is provided that mea ad 

i 

udaed guilty of certain offenses 

shall ?or?sit oertaln r ghts and privilegea.W 

In Baker, v. State, I.56 8. N. WS, the san oourt 

upheld the oonstitutlonallty o? Senate Bill Ho. 5 smaaed by 

the 3Srd Legislature upon the follodng prOPO8ltlOn: 

*The passage of this law, misnamed a bauspensioa 

o? rantmoe* 2 'is a le illative Aot, parsed Within the 

soope of tha power w hf oh they and they alone possess, 

to iti by law the punishment 0r any and all penal OSrenses. It does 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 theory o? the OOUrt in upholding the present 

sdapended Senteaoe Law was, 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 Law Is purely a 

psnalty statute. . . .(I 

Advertfag to the Baod&rass oars, wherein the old suspended Sentenoe Law wan hold unoonstltutlonal, It is hl 

P 

ly 

aignltioant that the effort to uphold this 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 grounded upon ths proposition 

that the rsoipient of a suspsnded sentence had not 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, other th6B 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 JUr 

I' 

the ten not l mbreolng tb satanoe 

or a tinal judg8ent am OOB radlstlngulshed thererror. Moreover, 

\ 

. 
435 

Honorable J-08 ‘8. Strewn, Pago 6 

the court polntsd out *an4 no one would qurstlon, It under 

thla Aot, a parson tm4 boon triad an4 conriotad, his mentanoe aua~1en484, It It ahoul& bo attempta to try him again 

ror the aama offense, 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 triad and oonviotod of tha acme ofr0n80.- 

And In Coon V. Stats, 243 8. W. 914, it was daclaradr 

*was the 

of the a 

udgmant grenting l ppal&nt the benefit 

*subpen od Santonoe Law’ upon oonrlotlon undar 

the tlrat ipdlotmeat .auoh a &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) . . . 10 the 

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 nubaoquent oonrlotion 

rot anothsrrelony. . . . ThO applloetlon of the law 

whloh prevents a subsequent proaeoutlon ror thr aamo offense where thara her been a rormar oonrlotlon 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 aeama to bare wholly ororlookab. Seotlon 2 

or Art1010 16 ocsmui4a tha Leglslaturo to l neot oertain laws in the following languagrz *Laws ahall be 

~~48 to l xolude iron otiloo, serving on juries, , an4 

rrom the rlght 0r auirra 

IMY herealtar gp, oonrio & rd Of robbery, perjury, forgery, 

a those who may hevo been or 

or other high orlmea.* The Lagialatura In obe4lanoa to 
(, this oaamand, has passed laws in acoordanoa with 

its protialona, but this AOt ot the Lo 

aSthough a parson had bren rdjubgad 

lalatur~, 

gu f lty or rorgem, 

or brlberr, if appellant*8 oonatruotlon la oorraot, 

and they aufrar no diubllit~ by reason of auoh oonriotion, would ba In dlmot bonfllot with this provlslon 6f thr tIonatltutlolr an6 would theretore 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 bo void. This o o a fliol t, ooor dintg o the oourt, would 

result ii 8 poraai uhc“la the raalpiaat of a l urponbod l a a tea o a 

wo uld no t rutfar the diaablllt~ pronouaoed by t&a p+orlaloa 

OS tha 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 &aw a 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 moan the l aoortaiumont 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 opinion and also Or tha 

i opinion la the Saodgaaa oaao, wherein be oondamnad the 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 

for a dirrerent or no puaiahmaat for a flret rlolation. This 

reaaonlng, it la baliarad, praaupposaa a *oonvlotloP for the 

ofronae charged rot the obvious roaaoa tbut no Eattot ir 

punlahmeat ba light, as a l uapan4o4 santenoo, or @mater, as 

a penitentiary aeatanoa, nonathaleoa therm must bo a OOnriOLion, l lae the punlhmaat aurrarad would bo violattire Or 

fuadamental law. 

t 

! The roregoing dlaousaioa domonatrataa, or 00 

-cli.r the question bsroro us la not Iran mm doubt, an4 Ut;t- la 

, 

I . 
Hoaorabla Jaawa U. Strawn, Faga 8 

an open on0 in Texas. We are oonetralntid to the opinion however, that it oomporta with the log10 anployed in the oaaaa 

wa hare rovlawed, partioularly thoee treating of tha oonatitutlonallty of tha 8uapandod 8&onoo laws, en4 with 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 OS Texas 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 

f 

lary le a -high orimo* wlthia the purview or Saotlon 2 or 

Art 01s 16 of the Oonatifution or ‘Taxa@, that it la the opinion 

ot this Department that a parson who has bean oonrlota4 of 

burglary an4 aaaeaaed a two year aua~nde4 aantanoa whloh is 

at111 in fores and l fieot la not eligible to the orrloe or 

Juetloa of the Peaom under the Conatltutlon and statutes of 

,- Taxaa...~~ 

-.: /.; 

i Toura vary truly 

ATTORNEY OlQJEML 07 TEXAS 

BY 

zcs: BBB 

A~FROVIDNOV 22, 1940