Texas Attorney General Opinion: WW-989 Page: 2 of 6
6 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Mr. Jack Ross, Page 2 (WW-989)
state is in the process of returning him to its
jurisdiction?
"4) When authorized and directed by the sending
state, may a parolee or probationer from such state,
who is being supervised in the State of Texas, be
held in custody upon the order of the Administrator
of the Compact for the State of Texas until a revo-
cation warrant can be obtained from the sending state?"
Section 2, paragraph (3) of Article 781c, Code of Criminal Procedure,
states:
"(3) That duly accredited officers of a sending state
may at all times enter a receiving state and there apprehend
and retake any person on probation or parole. For that purpose
no formalities will be required other than establishing the
authority 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 receiv-
ing state; provided, however, that if at the time when a state
seeks to retake a probationer or parolee there should be pend-
ing against him within the receiving state any criminal charge,
or he should be suspected of having committed within such state
a criminal offense, he shall not be retaken without the consent
of the receiving state until discharged from prosecution or from
imprisonment for such offense."
To answer your first question, when the parole or probation of a person
who is being supervised in the State of Texas for another state, is revoked by
the other state, that state may send its agents into the State of Texas and upon
proper identification may take physical custody of the parolee or probationer
and return, him to the sending state without extradition proceedings and without
reference to whether the person has signed a waiver of extradition in the State
of Texas. In State of Alabama ex rel Bridges v. Waters, 108 Soo2d 23 146 (Ala.
s.Ct. 1959) the Alabama Supreme Court held that the receiving state could not
inquire into the sending state's reasons for revoking parole. In Woods v. State,
87 So.2d 633 (Ala. SCto 1956) the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the constitution-
ality of the Compact against a claim that it violated the due process clause of
the Constitution. In the case of Gulley, Sheriff v. Apple, 210 S.W.2d 514 (Ark.
1948) the Arkansas Supreme Court held that the Interstate Parole Compact did not
violate the right of habeas corpus, and also stated that federal extradition
procedure was not intended to prevent states from making other arrangements for
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: WW-989, text, January 24, 1961; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth267601/m1/2/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.