OFFlCE OF THE A’CTORNEY GENERAL OF TAUSTIN 

QRlu, G M*nw 

*-WV 0mm-b 

Honorable Walter C. Strong, Member 

Board of l'ardone and Paroles 

Auutln, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion lh 0-3648-A 

Rer Interpretation oi OIW 

opzIl.ion Ho* O-3648 

.Thls vlll aalmovledge reoblpt of your letter oft 

septmlber 5, 1941, lrhereirr you be&ae to Imov the 

tsrpretation ot that port of OUT 0pMon Ho. Oroper lq- 

,6d e-a+ns 

as rouovclt 

*As stated before, vhile the relator map not 

have forfeited the extra the for good conduot 

an&~overtlam vork elloved vlslch he bad earned up 

to hi8 relesre on the con&Stlozml pardon, he ir 

not entitled to receive a* 0 credit on hi13 foiayear nentenae, the one yeu, one month and rlxteen days that he van at large on the oondltioml 

pardan. The aame ,Ungth of &me remained to be 

served by r4ator aP”Sune 20, 194-0, a8 on Hay 4, 

1939." 

In said opinion ve ptmred on tvo po%nts. 

The quoted portion, net out hereinabove, et&e8 both 

of the tvo points ruled on by said ogInlon. The fir& point 

le summarized in the firet four linee, reading aa follovet 

“As abated before, vhlle the relator may not 

have forfeited the extra time ‘ior good oQndu0t 

and overtlme VOrk 8Llovetl Huh he had 0arned 0 

This first point, therefoxut, merely states that under 

the f!otzi submitted to uu in the Virgil Bounda oases vhloh are 

set out fn asid opinS011, the petite&la 

Fzr 

authorities did not 

have the right, at the ttie the relator Vlrgll Bounds) ~8 returned to the penitentiary, to forfeit any of the ~overtlme and 

224 
225 

%encmable Walter 0. Stmmg, Page 2 

mamutation earned by sald Virgil Bound8 prior to his dlsahmge 

en the eondltlonal pardon. our rea8ons for 80 hol&lg on that 

part of our opfnion, are fully set out on Pageltq themiddle 

of Page 0 of raid opinion. 

The rreoond point ruled on by ua in Bald opMon Is 

l sma r lr ed in the last rixlbr of the qvotodportion, xwadlag ae rollov8r 

í l l l he ( r ela to r , Vir g il B0up u.a1) 0 not o ntitled to noelve aa a aradlt aa hla four-yew 

l nto no e, the o ne yea r o, ne mo nth uul d8tea n Ua y a 

th a th8va o a tla q ta o nthea o nUltima lBa r Uun. 

PhcruEe1ar@.h0stirw nma llmu to b e l er veu b y 

r ela tor 

6 

Vir g il Bo umb ) o n June 20, 1 900a , 8c m 

I4 4,159. 

It l ppoar8 fram your l*ttor that thb reoend point 

le the part vhlch you Uealre to have iaterpnteU. 

aandltic&mrdon, aouldnetba aredltedanhim Sow-maw mmT~~II 8eocmU potit ir oovemd irr our OWdon to. %40, 

bpla vith the mIdtIle of Page 0 through Pakte 10 o? wld 

IndeteminlagthequortionoSubtherVlWXlWuud8 

mmldbe efitltleclto armlltonhir four-nap eentenoe of the 

~y~,aaeBlonthanda~tcHn~~h,epentatl~eaahis 

of the oroclamaam uet nnule 

entit1L to 

of the time he spent out*l& 
Honorable Walter 0, Strong, Page 3 

Whether to give him credit or not, vas a matter to 

be detezlrPined bythe Qavernor , dn, the recaanenuation and advice of the Board of Pardons and Paroles. whether he is entitled to be glvcn credit, thmefom, must be detemtlued fxm 

the language used in sold ~roolssintion. 

merely 

32558, 

!zn our oplnlon HO. a-yM3, on t&l& seoon& pdnt, lie 

held that fran the 1-e used in Proolaatloa. So. 

~&I Ilo. 

granting said Virgil BOW&I said oondltlonal paMan, 

1603, revoking said ~bnditlonal pardon, and fmm the 

other facts furnished us, all of whloh are quoted in said opLaIon, lt Is shown that one o$ the oondltlons uuderrrbLahsueh 

pardon vas granted, ira8. that n iii? VIZ? fl Bout& violate 

say of the other aondltlons u&E vhiah Ls pa+doa vas grmated 

(suah as totally abstaix&lngfrm the use 6f intoxicratlng 

111quors), the pa&on amild be revoked and “the uid YisgU 

Bounds may be, by order of the Governor, retumed to @ oomf3ned in the penltsn'tlary until the end of his seateaee,d aad 

t&t, therefore, the one year, one month aad sirteen day-61 

oou3d not be oredited on his eentenoe, but that he had to 

serve the ~elen&thoftlset~trsayrln~unserr~~hta 

four-ye& sentems when he l aasptedl the pardon uat these dendltions, on Hay 4, 1939. 

Under the facts upoarhleh said opti&m 1e based, 

ve determined that Virgil Bounds vas grants a pardoa br the 

Oovernor--subject to eertaln cenbitlims, or strlaga, attached; 

In other vcrdp, that he vba granted a fom of exooutlve oLarenog commonly 'knowi as a co*tlonal parden,'by. authoeity of 

Artlale 4, Bcotlon 11, Constitution of Texas, wd;badopted lkwez4bor 3, 1955. 

Bounde accepted the pardon on the furthar oonditian’ 

that should be violate any of the ather coaditlons irpposed,~ 

he could be returned to the penltshtlary snd oonfined In the 

penitentiary--for how lox@ Fhe pracl~etlon etates %ntll 

the end of his zmntsnce." 

The foctu upon vhlch said oplnlon Is based, further 

show that ‘the Oovernor, b$ Proclamation fo.,l603, dated Jkme 

20, 194C, revoked said oondltlonal pardon bemuse of the vlolation of the conditions upan vhlah It vas ~ran%ed. The revoaatlm also directs thatr “thfs prfson authorities w8 
Bonorable Walter C. Strong, Page 4 

hereby directed to take him in Charge and return him to the 

penltentlary to serve the remainder of his sentence.” 

By “remainder of his sentence” Is necessarily meant, 

the remcinder of his origins1 sentence, 5s that la the only 

sentence he vas undes, as far as the said Proalamations are 

concerned, 

As stated at Page 8 of eeld opinion, “where a prlroner has accepted e conditional pardon and has been released 

from imprisonment by virtue thereof, but has violated or failed 

to perform the 0ondl.tl.r@s, orany of them, the pardon beccws 

void, and the oxUaina1 th be rearrested and oanpelled 

-ergo the @unishme?l~~$~~~~ his or&l&l sentence, or 

so much thereof as he had not suffered at the time of his releases and the time during vhloh the convict 5s at large under 

a conditional pardon 1s not to be oonsidered as time served on 

the orlglnal sentence.” 

As hereinabove shovn, the proolamation granting said 

pardon to said Virgil Bounds, vaa expressly condltloned that 

the failure of Bounds to comply with the,00 I 

righi?o 

under uhlah 

It vas granted, would give the @overnor the revoke the 

pardon and order Bounds oonflned ln the penitentiary until the 

end of his aenteme. The substance of the language used in 

said proclamation, clearly show that "until the end of thm 

sentenoe*meansZ;hetime wining to the end ofhls four-year 

sentence, ~oalculated from the time of Bounds’ acceptance of 

the condltlonal pardon. 

If the Covernor, upon the recommendation of the E&and ’ 

of pardons b; Paroles, had Intended that the time during whloh 

Bounds vas out on Ns conditional pardon should be oredited on 

his four-year sentence, it is obvious that such Intention vould 

have been expressed ln clear language In the proclamation and 

not left to be implied from language, vhi h YO think clear1 

&%~$%$p%~~ ~ee~e~~n~‘Ptb~~b~~~~~~~ts~~~ !ovemor In his proclmatlon till use that language which vi11 

most clearly shov his intention. 

Since, therefore, the seoand point in said opinion 

(hcldlngdt~~under the language of the proclamations In his 

case, the other bacts submltted to ua 3.n his Case, he 

vas not entitled to receive as a credit on his four-year sentence the one year, one month and sixteen days he vas at large 
Honorable Walter C. Strong, page 5 

on his condItional pardon) is bssed on those specific facts 

In the Bounds ease snd the language used in the proclsmatlons 

mentioned, It is obvious that sa1d.oplnion does not pass on 

hs general question of vhethrr ths time on an lrssate~s *entenoe ueases to run from the date he Is released from prison 

on clemency. 

You ars therefore respeotfklly advised that: 

First: Our Opinion Ao. O-m8 does not hold and, 

therefore,~d not be oonatrued sa hold%& that ths time 

on an Inmate18 sentenoe oeaaes to run from the date ho Is released from prison on 01emena~. pn*t gQneral questicn Yas not 

hr0m M. 

It should further be noted that the f8at8, as stated 

In aeid opinion, apeoltiaally shov that the conditions of the 

pardon vere vlolsted by Bounds rior to the exptiatlon of four 

yeus frcsu the date vhen he vaa E--F sen enaed to serve a four-year 

term. 

Seoondt Said opinion doea not hold and, therefore, 

should not- nstrued as holdjmg or passIn&upan the question of vhether & condItiona pcrrdoneo, whc viom his oonItlaald opinion, where 

Bounds violated his conditlonr before the eJcpIratIon of four 

years frcm the date he was sent-to a four-year term). 

Since under the fae+s upon whloh our opinion Ho. 

0-3fiW Is based, the olemetiop granted to Bounds was a oondltional pardon (so rumed In the proolamatlon and so oonstrued 

by us from the language used in the proolasmtlon) granted 

under the authority aonferred by Artiole 4, Section 11 of the 

Constitution of Texas, adopted lovember 3, 1.936, the elements 

of a statutory parole are not lnvolv~d in arid opinion. 

Third8 Said opinion, therefore, does not pass on, 

and aonseqmy should not be construed as passin(l on, the 
Bnorable Walter 0. Strong, Page 6 

fO&lOViag~quQSt~OMt (a) WhethQr the p8rOlQ StatutQS are 

stfJ1 operative in Texas, a lnoe the oreatlon of thQ presQnt 

Board of Pardons and Paroles under Artiole 4, Section 11 of 

the Constitution of Texas, adopted Rovsmber 3, 1936. (bj The 

status of a prisoner now outside of t+ penitentiary on a 

statutory parole, 

Trusting that the above fully answers your iuqulry, 

ve are 

EPlef