Court Opinion

ID: 9767734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:24:37.590798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:32.681263
License: Public Domain

DAVIDSON, Judge,
dissenting.
Whether the clemency extended to the appellant was a suspended sentence under the suspended-sentence law, or a probation of sentence under the adult-probation law, is — to my mind— immaterial. Under each, appellant’s probation was not entitled to be revoked unless and until he had (a) committed an offense, (b) failed to attend church, or (c) failed to report to the sheriff.
The sole ground here used to revoke the probation was that appellant had committed two offenses against the laws of this state: one for assault and the other, felony theft.
There is not the least proof, here, that prior to the order of revocation appellant had been duly tried and convicted of either offense, in accordance with law.
No man has, in law, committed an offense until his guilt has been established by a trial in accordance with law. Facts may exist which show that an offense has been committed, but it takes the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction to determine that one has committed a violation of the law.
Here, the ex parte hearing, whereby the trial court made the determination that appellant had violated the laws of this state, was void for the want of jurisdiction, if for no other reason.
When the appellant has been tried and convicted in the courts of this state for the alleged unlawful acts, the trial court may, upon those convictions, revoke the clemency extended. But unless and until that has been done, appellant is not shown to have violated the conditions of probation.
If the time has come when men are tried and convicted of a violation of the law, without a complaint or indictment having been first filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and without the right of trial by jury having been accorded, then the judg*385ment in this case ought to be affirmed, because that is exactly what has been here done to the appellant.
I respectfully dissent to the perpetration of such a wrong.