Ex Parte Williams

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ex Parte Williams

1913 OK CR 304, 136 P. 597, 10 Okla. Crim. 344, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 349

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 1, 1913

DocketNo. A-2116.

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 1913 OK CR 304 (Ex Parte Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex Parte Williams, 1913 OK CR 304, 136 P. 597, 10 Okla. Crim. 344, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 349 (Okla. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

FURMAN, J.

(after stating the facts as above). When this matter was presented to the Governor of Oklahoma, he properly referred it to the Attorney General for legal advice. The Attorney General advised the Governor that, to be a fugitive from justice under the act of Congress, it is not necessary that the person charged with having left the state in which the crime was alleged to have been committed did so for the purpose of avoiding a prosecution anticipated or begun, but simply that, having within a state committed a crime against the laws, he leaves such state, *346 and, when he is sought to be subjected to its criminal process to answer for his offense, he is found within the territory of another state. In support of this proposition, the Attorney General cited the following authorities: Ex parte Dickson, 4 Ind. T. 481, 69 S. W. 943; Op. Gov. Fairfield (Me.), 24 Am. Jur. 226; State v. Richter, 37 Minn. 436, 35 N. W. 9; In re Voorhees, 32 N. J. Law, 141; People v. Pinkerton, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 199; Johnson v. Ammons (Ohio) 7 Am. Law Rec. 662; Hibler v. State, 43 Tex. 197; Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80, 6 Sup. Ct. 291, 29 L. Ed. 544; In re Bruce (C. C.) 132 Fed. 390; In re Bloch (D. C.) 87 Fed. 981; In re White, 55 Fed. 54, 5 C. C. A. 29; Ex parte Brown (D. C.) 28 Fed. 653.

We are of the opinion that the advice of the Attorney General to the Governor states the law correctly. In further support of this proposition, we desire to cite the case of Drinkall v. Spiegel, 68 Conn. 441, 36 Atl. 830, 36 L. R. A. 486. In that case the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a prisoner who violates a parole, and goes into another state, is a fugitive from justice within the provisions of the United States Constitution and laws, and that such person is subject to extradition.

There is but one question in this case, and that is the legality of the revocation of the parole of petitioner; but this is a question for the courts of Indiana, for they alone have the-right to construe their Constitution and laws. AVhen the Governor’s action in any matter is authorized by law, it is our duty to sustain such action, and we take great pleasure in doing so. We find that the Governor's action in this case is entirely proper, and within the law, and it is therefore upheld and sustained, and the writ is denied, and any officer of the state of Oklahoma who may noyv have petitioner in his custody is directed to surrender him to the duly authorized representative of the state of Indiana, in obedience to the Governor's warrant issued in this proceeding. It is further ordered that the extradition papers may be withdrawn from the files by the attorneys representing the state of Indiana.

Mandate will issue without delay.

ARMSTRONG, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FURMAN, J.

(after stating the facts as above). When this matter was presented to the Governor of Oklahoma, he properly referred it to the Attorney General for legal advice. The Attorney General advised the Governor that, to be a fugitive from justice under the act of Congress, it is not necessary that the person charged with having left the state in which the crime was alleged to have been committed did so for the purpose of avoiding a prosecution anticipated or begun, but simply that, having within a state committed a crime against the laws, he leaves such state, *346 and, when he is sought to be subjected to its criminal process to answer for his offense, he is found within the territory of another state. In support of this proposition, the Attorney General cited the following authorities: Ex parte Dickson, 4 Ind. T. 481, 69 S. W. 943; Op. Gov. Fairfield (Me.), 24 Am. Jur. 226; State v. Richter, 37 Minn. 436, 35 N. W. 9; In re Voorhees, 32 N. J. Law, 141; People v. Pinkerton, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 199; Johnson v. Ammons (Ohio) 7 Am. Law Rec. 662; Hibler v. State, 43 Tex. 197; Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80, 6 Sup. Ct. 291, 29 L. Ed. 544; In re Bruce (C. C.) 132 Fed. 390; In re Bloch (D. C.) 87 Fed. 981; In re White, 55 Fed. 54, 5 C. C. A. 29; Ex parte Brown (D. C.) 28 Fed. 653.

We are of the opinion that the advice of the Attorney General to the Governor states the law correctly. In further support of this proposition, we desire to cite the case of Drinkall v. Spiegel, 68 Conn. 441, 36 Atl. 830, 36 L. R. A. 486. In that case the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a prisoner who violates a parole, and goes into another state, is a fugitive from justice within the provisions of the United States Constitution and laws, and that such person is subject to extradition.

There is but one question in this case, and that is the legality of the revocation of the parole of petitioner; but this is a question for the courts of Indiana, for they alone have the-right to construe their Constitution and laws. AVhen the Governor’s action in any matter is authorized by law, it is our duty to sustain such action, and we take great pleasure in doing so. We find that the Governor's action in this case is entirely proper, and within the law, and it is therefore upheld and sustained, and the writ is denied, and any officer of the state of Oklahoma who may noyv have petitioner in his custody is directed to surrender him to the duly authorized representative of the state of Indiana, in obedience to the Governor's warrant issued in this proceeding. It is further ordered that the extradition papers may be withdrawn from the files by the attorneys representing the state of Indiana.

Mandate will issue without delay.

ARMSTRONG, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK CR 304, 136 P. 597, 10 Okla. Crim. 344, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-williams-oklacrimapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack