court held that althoughNorth Carolinawas not the receivingstate to which Severahad been sent under the Compact,Severa had agreed in his waiver not to contestany effort "by any state",to return him to New Jersey,and that New Jersey might retake him withoutextradition. In a 1955 opinion,the WyomingAttorneyGeneralallowed this procedureas did.the IdahoAttorneyGeneralin a 1956 opinion.
For your third question,you asked whethera person may be admittedto bail in Texas when he is on parole or probationfrom anotherstate,when his parole or probationhas been revoked,and when the sendingstate is in the pro- cess of returninghim to its jurisdiction.The AttorneyGeneralof North Carolina is the only officialto deal directlywith this problem. In an opiniondated November7, 1959, that office statedthat out-of-stateparoleesunder supervision in North Carolinamay be arrestedupon issuanceof a temporaryrevocationwarrant by the North CarolinaCompactAdministrator.Such paroleesare not entitledto bail when they are being held in custodypendingthe sendingstate'sdecisionas to their return. Bail in such situationswas not contemplatedby the statute. Article 1, Section11 of the Constitutionof the State of Texas providesin part:
"All prisonersshallbe bailableby sufficientsureties, unless for capitaloffenses,when the proof is evident."
However,this sectionhas been held to securethe right of bail only to those prisonerswho have not been tried and convicted. Ex parte McBride,2 S.W.2d 267 (Tex.Crim.1928),held that Section11 of Article 1 of the Texas Constitu- tion has referenceto prisonersbefore conviction. Prisonersafter conviction were held not to be guaranteedthe right of bail. Other Texas cases holding this are Ex carte Bzell,40 Tex. 451; Ex parte Schwartz,2 Tex.App.74; Warnock Y. State.6 Tex.Ano.450: Ex oarte McCorkle,29 Tex.App.20. In our situation these paroleesor-probationers have all been tried and convictedand there is no authorityfor admittingto bail such paroleesor probationers.
Section2, paragraph(2) of Article781.~,Code of CriminalProcedure, known as the UniformAct for Out-of-StateParoleeSupervision,reads as follows: Mr. Jack ROBS, Page 5 (w-989) "(2) That each receivingstatewill assume the duties of visitationof and supervisionOver probationersor paroleesof any sendingstate and in the exerciseof those dutieswill be governedby the same standardsthat prevailfor its own proba- tionersand parolees."
Then, Section21 of Article78~3, Code of CriminalProcedure,known as the Adult Probationand Parole Law of 1957, reads:
"Upon order by the Governor,the Roard is authorizedto issue a warrantfor the return of any paroledprisonerto the institutionfrom which he was paroled. Such warrant shall authorizeall officersnamed thereinto return such paroled prisonerto actual custodyin the penal institutionfrom which he was paroled. Pendinghearing,as hereinafterprovided,upon any charge of paroleviolation,the prisonershall remain incar- ceratedin such institution. .* ..
Construingthe above sectionsof these two acts together,it seems apparentthat bail in the cases of out-of-stateparoleesor probationersbeing supervisedin Texas is not to be permitted.
In answeringyour fourth question,when authorizedand directedby the sendingstate,a paroleeor probationerfrom such statewho is being supervised in the State of Texas may be held in custodyupon the order of the Administrator of the Compactfor the State of Texas until a revocationwarrant can be obtained from the sendingstate. In State of Alabamaex rel. BridgesY. Waters, supra, the Alabama SupremeCourt held that the Compactauthorizedapprehensionof paroleesby officersof the sendingstate,but did not preventtheir apprehension by officersof the receivingstate. In Stone v. Robinson,219 Miss. 456, 69 So. 2d 206 (Miss.S.Ct. 1954) the MiBsiBBippiSupremeCourt held that Stone