Title: Woods v. State
Citation: 87 So. 2d 633
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 24, 1956

87 So. 2d 633 (1956)
James WOODS
v.
STATE.
6 Div. 945.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 24, 1956.
*634 Matt Murphy, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Robt. Straub, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal under Sec. 369, Title 15, Code of Alabama 1940, taken by petitioner from a judgment on a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The judge granted the writ, had a hearing on the return of the sheriff, and thereupon made the following order:
The return of the sheriff admitted that he held petitioner in custody but by virtue of the following authority:
The warrant under which petitioner was held is as follows:
The judgment rendered by the Jefferson County Court of Misdemeanors is as follows:
"The State vs. James WoodsFugitive from justice8-14 8-29
The state has submitted a motion to dismiss the appeal because appellant has not filed a brief as required by the Rules of the Supreme Court, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix. We note that in criminal cases it is not necessary for the appellant to submit a brief on appeal. Sec. 389, Tit. 15, Code 1940; Higginbotham v. State, 262 Ala. 236, 78 So. 2d 637, and cases there cited. That statute does not expressly dispense with a brief by appellant, but requires the court on appeal in criminal cases to "consider all questions apparent on the record or reserved by bill of exceptions." New Supreme Court Rule applies "in criminal cases, and in all other cases in which briefs are not required." Rule 16.
It seems to be the general opinion that habeas corpus is a civil, as distinguished from a criminal, remedy or proceeding, regardless of whether the prisoner is detained under civil or criminal process. *636 39 C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, § 1, p. 426; Ex parte Tom Tong, 108 U.S. 556, 2 S. Ct. 871, 27 L. Ed. 826; Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U.S. 333, 43 S. Ct. 555, 67 L. Ed. 1009; Ex parte Smotherman, 140 Ala. 168, 37 So. 376.
Section 369, supra, which governs here, provides that on appeal in such cases the appellate court shall "consider the case on the record and the evidence as set forth." Said section expressly provides that no bill of exceptions or assignments of error are necessary or required.
It follows that since no briefs are required on such appeals, Rule 16, supra, applies to them as in criminal cases. The appeal should not be dismissed for the absence of a brief for appellant.
Neither party to this appeal has filed a brief on the merits. But it is our duty to consider the case on the record and the evidence as set forth, to see if the order of the trial judge is correct and should be affirmed, or is erroneous and should be reversed,all as required by Sec. 369, supra.
On the trial, the evidence showed that petitioner was arrested on the warrant [copied hereinabove], and on trial was "ordered to be released to the New York authorities." The proceeding for his arrest and the order releasing him to the New York authorities were claimed by virtue of Sec. 27, Tit. 42, Code of 1940.
On the trial of this habeas corpus case, it was agreed in open court that pursuant to Sec. 27, supra, the Governor of Alabama and the Governor of New York had entered into an agreement as recited in the statute. But defendant contended that our statute, supra, is void because it violates the due process clause of the Constitution, and that the order for his release to the New York officers was without legal authority. That contention was denied and overruled, and it presents the only matter shown by the transcript, which is our duty to consider on this appeal under Sec. 369, supra.
The statute referred to, Sec. 27, Tit. 42, Code 1940, is a codification of an act approved August 24, 1939, General Acts 1939, p. 432. It recites that it was enacted upon the authority of an Act of Congress granting the consent of Congress to such a pact between the governors of two or more states. We find the Act of Congress first appears in 48 U.S. Statutes at Large 1933-34, p. 909, Chapter 406, and is in the following language:
"Approved, June 6, 1934."
It was due to be Sec. 420, Tit. 18 U.S.C. A. The pocket part contains reference to its readoption May 24, 1949, c. 139, § 129(b), 63 Stat. 107. Instead of being carried into Tit. 18, it now appears in Title 4, § 111, U. S.C.A.
Section 27, Tit. 42, supra, does not contemplate such a proceeding based upon an affidavit and warrant for violating a parole in New York, but provides that under such a pact with New York it may permit a parolee of that state under named circumstances to reside in Alabama without that circumstance violating his parole. Those circumstances were not shown by the evidence, nor was it necessary to do so. Sec. 27, supra, provides that duly "accredited officers of a sending state [New York here] may at all times enter a receiving state [Alabama] and there apprehend and retake any person on probation or parole. For that purpose no formalities will be required other than establishing the authority *637 of the officer and the identity of the person to be retaken. All legal requirements to obtain extradition of fugitives from justice are hereby expressly waived on the part of states party hereto, as to such persons. The decision of the sending state to retake a person on probation or parole shall be conclusive upon and not reviewable within the receiving state." We need not refer to the other features of the act.
It will be observed that it does not provide for any preliminary proceeding to be conducted by the New York officer before apprehending and retaking a probationer or parolee, nor for any judicial proceeding to determine the identity of the person apprehended, or whether his probation or parole has been revoked or whether the person arresting him is "a duly accredited officer" of New York.
The validity of this procedure was questioned in Arkansas, and considered in the case of Gulley v. Apple, 213 Ark. 350, 210 S.W.2d 514, 518. There, the trial court held that because no proceeding was required to apprehend and retake a parolee, and no provision for reviewing the legality of such seizure, it violated due process, and that Article IV, Sec. 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution and Acts of Congress were the only authority for such procedure, and it was not authorized by them. On appeal, attention was called to Article I, Sec. 10 of the Constitution, which provides that "No state shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation" without the consent of Congress. It was pointed out that Congress had consented by the enactment to which we have referred and that Missouri and Arkansas had entered into a compact adopting the Uniform Act. The court referred to that feature of the Uniform Act, which we have here copied, and the contention that it violated due process. In answering it, the Arkansas Supreme Court referred to Article IV, Sec. 2, Clause 2, supra, and the Congressional Acts, and then proceeded:
The opinion then stated:
We have copied the foregoing extensively since the questions are new in Alabama and in other states. The argument and conclusion which are set out above are, we think, sound and are here adopted.
This act has been upheld also in the case of Pierce v. Smith, 31 Wash. 2d 52, 195 P.2d 112.
The questions on habeas corpus when the statute in question is relied on are: (1) a compact between the governors as authorized by the statute; (2) whether the officer apprehending the person involved is a duly accredited officer of the sending state (New York here); (3) whether the person apprehended is in fact a probationer or parolee of that state; and (4) whether the sending state has revoked the probation or parole of the person apprehended and decided to retake him.
The petition for habeas corpus here in question does not challenge any of those requirements. The only question involved on the appeal is the constitutionality of the statute, Sec. 27, Tit. 42, supra, for being violative of due process. We do not agree with such contention. Therefore, there was no error in the order of the judge declining to grant the discharge of the petitioner.
Affirmed.
LAWSON, STAKELY and MERRILL, JJ., concur.