<p>1.—Pardon.—Governor—Revocation of Pardon—Habeas Corpus.</p> <p>Where the Governor pardoned relator, stating that the condition of the pardon was that relator must conduct himself as a good and law-abiding citizen and not again violate the laws of the State before the expiration of the time for which he was sentenced, and relator accepted said pardon under the conditions therein set forth, the Governor could not revoke said pardon on the ground that further evidence had been presented and upon further consideration it was not thought that the relator deserved clemency at this time.</p> <p>2.—Same—Rule Stated—Unconditional Pardon—Fraud.</p> <p>When the Governor has issued an unconditional pardon and it is accepted by the prisoner and he is released thereunder, all power and control by the Governor over the prisoner is gone, unless the pardon was obtained by fraud.</p> <p>3. —Same—Conditional Pardon—Unconditional Pardon.</p> <p>A conditional pardon is as absolute an act upon the conditions named therein as is an unconditional pardon, and it can be revoked only upon a, violation of the condition the Governor has seen proper to insert therein, and where the Governor does not claim in the proclamation of revocation that relator has violated any of the conditions in the pardon, such revocation is null and void.</p> <p>4. —Same—Conditional Pardon—Case Stated.</p> <p>Where the sole ground alleged in the revocation is that since the, granting of the conditional pardon further evidence has been presented to the Governor, who, upon further consideration, does not deem relator worthy of clemency, and the original pardon was granted upon the condition that relator should not violate the laws of the State, such revocation is null and void.</p> <p>5. —Same—Power of the Courts—Discretion of Governor.</p> <p>While it is true that the right to grant pardons is conferred on the Governor by the Constitution and is not subject to review, yet this power does not necessarily' carry with it the right to revoke the pardon on a condition not stated therein, and under the Constitution the judicial department under the writ of habeas corpus can discharge the relator.</p> <p>6. —Same—Revocation—Future Violation of Conditions.</p> <p>If relator should violate the condition at any time which the Governor placed in the pardon, the same may be revoked and annulled, but until he does so he is entitled to his liberty.</p> <p>7. —Same—Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>Where, in view of the disposition of the 'case, it is unnecessary to decide other questions raised, they will not be passed on.</p> <p>8. —Same—Rule Stated—Right to Revoke—Conditional Pardon.</p> <p>The right to revoke a conditional pardon does not come from any power conferred on the Governor by the Constitution and laws of the State, but solely by reason of the conditions placed in the pardon.</p> <p>9. —Same—Rule Stated—Power of Governor to Revoke, When.</p> <p>Neither the Constitution nor the laws of this State invest the Governor with the authority to conduct an investigation and decide whether or not a condition in the pardon has been violated. His power to revoke must arise from the language he uses and the reservations he makes in the conditional pardon, but this question is not raised, and need not be discussed, as the Governor does not claim that the conditions named by him in the pardon were violated by relator.</p> <p>10. —Same—Case Stated—Conditional Pardon.</p> <p>When the pardon was delivered to and accepted by relator, the conditions became binding on him and the Governor as well, and before the Governor can act, relator must violate the conditions named, or some one of them.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1913-06-18
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently December 2017
3 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶3
In this case the State has filed a motion for rehearing, and upon the invitation of the court the Hon. S. C. Padelford made a very able oral argument, but stated he had not had time and would not have time to file such written brief as he desired to file before the adjournment of court, and, inasmuch as this court, by operation of law, must adjourn for the term this week, and the question presented is one- of much importance, we have concluded to postpone consideration of the motion for rehearing until the beginning of the next term, with the request that State’s counsel file such brief as they desire on or before August 1st, and that relator’s counsel file a brief, if they so desire, on or before September 1st, that this court may give to this case that study and thought its importance deserves during vacation. However, in entering this order, we do not think relator ought to be confined in
*600
jail during the vacation of the court, and while counsel are preparing their briefs, but that he ought to be allowed his liberty during such time, and we hereby order him released upon entering into bond with two or more good sufficient sureties in the sum of five hundred dollars, conditioned that relator will make his appearance before this court at the beginning of the next term of this court, being the first Monday of October, 1913, and there remain from day to day and term to term to abide the judgment and decree of this court upon the final disposition of this ease; said bond to be presented to and approved by the sheriff of Tarrant County, who is ordered to relase relator upon the execution and delivery of such bond to him, and which said bond will be forwarded by the sheriff after its approval by him to the clerk of this court to be filed with the papers in this cause.
