Ex parte Neighbors

Ex parte Neighbors
1947 OK CR 136
187 P.2d 276
85 Okl.Cr. 183
Decided: 11/19/1947
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Constitutional Law-Transfer of Prisoners by Board of Public Affairs Valid Exercise of Administrative Power. Where the State Board of Public Affairs makes transfer of prisoners within its discretionary power, granted by the Legislature, such transfer constitutes a valid exercise of administrative power and is not a Judicial act.

2. Prisons-Custody and Control of Prisoners. Where the place of confinement, for one convicted of crime, is expressly

Page 184

provided by legislative classification, to a named penal institution as a means of segregating confirmed and hardened criminals from younger and less experienced criminals, neither the courts nor an administrative agency of the state, having custody of a prisoner, has any discretion to change the place of confinement from that designated in the statute by said classification.

3. Prisons-Reformatories-Transfer of Prisoners Within Discretionary Classification-Legislative Intent as to Classification and Segregation. Where the place of confinement of one convicted of crime has been expressly provided by statute to be within the discretion of either the courts or the administrative agency having custody of prisoner, the place of confinement is administrative and not a judicial act and the State Board of Public Affairs, as such agency, may make such transfers of prisoners falling within the discretionary classification, as will effectively consummate the legislative intent as to classification and segregation.

4. Same-Board of Affairs Acted Beyond Scope of its Discretionary Power in Transferring Repeat Violator From Penitentiary to Reformatory. Under the provisions of Title 57 0. S. A. § 105, it is clear that the Legislature intended the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester to be the place of confinement of confirmed criminals, repeat violators, those sentenced to life imprisonment, convicted of first degree man slaughter, assault with intent to kill in a cruel and inhumane manner, and persons convicted of first degree rape; the place of confinement of such convicts is not within the discretion of either the courts or the State Board of Public Affairs.

5. Same-Discretion of Court as to Sentencing Persons not Classified as to Place of Confinement. All persons convicted of crime, as to whom the Legislature has not made specific classifications relative to place of confinement, may be sentenced to the Oklahoma State Reformatory at Granite, or the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester, in the discretion of the court.

6. Reformatories-Place of Confinement of Persons Between Ages of 16 and 25 Years, Whose Sentence is not in Excess of Five Years. Under Title 57 0. S. A. § 281, creating the Oklahoma State Reformatory at Granite, it is clear that the Legislature in tended to establish a place of confinement for persons between the ages of 16 and 25 years, whose sentence was not in excess of 5 years, and as to such persons who had had a prior conviction the place of confinement was left to the discretion of the State Board of Public Affairs.

7. Prisons-Transfer of Prisoner Contrary to Statutory Classification. The State Board of Public Affairs may transfer

Page 185

prisoners from the Oklahoma State Reformatory to the Oklahoma State Penitentiary and vice versa in the exercise of its discretion when it is necessary so to do; to separate confirmed and incorrigible criminals from those who do not require the restrictions placed around them that the confirmed criminal requires, but, such transfers are not to be arbitrarily made or made contrary to classifications expressly provided by the Legislature, and where it appears that the transfer of a prisoner has been made contrary to a statutory classification, the State Board of Public Affairs will be directed to return the prisoner to the place of confinement as provided by law.

Original habeas corpus proceedings by Alvin Neighbors, who was incarcerated in the Oklahoma State Reformatory at Granite against Claude Moore, warden of the Granite Reformatory, respondent, for petitioner's discharge or to have petitioner returned to the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester, to complete service of sentence under which he was confined. Writ granted with directions.

See, also, 83 Okla. Cr. 331, 177 P.2d 133.

W. 0. Moffett, of Tulsa, for petitioner. Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Owen J. Watts,

Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BRETT, J. This is an original action in habeas corpus brought by petitioner, Alvin Neighbors, alleging that he is unlawfully restrained and imprisoned by Claude Moore, warden of the Granite Reformatory, located at Granite, Okla. The cause of said restraint he alleges is based on a judgment and sentence and commitment of 20 years in the State Penitentiary at McAlester, Okla., entered against the petitioner in Tulsa county, Okla., on August 15, 1944, on the charge of first degree manslaughter. His complaint, however, is based upon the proposition that on December 23, 1946, the State Board of Public Affairs made an order transferring the petitioner from

Page 186

the State Penitentiary at McAlester, to the State Reformatory at Granite. The petitioner contends that said order is void and his restraint and confinement at Granite is without authority of law, for the reason that, under the judgment and sentence of the trial court, he was specifically sentenced to the penitentiary at McAlester and said order of transfer is in conflict with the judgment and sentence of the trial court. He further contends that the provisions of Title 57 0. S. A. § 132 are unconstitutional and in conflict with the provisions of Title 57 0. S. A. § 105.

The judgment and sentence, omitting the caption, is in words and figures as follows, to wit:

"The court does now hereby adjudge and sentence the said: Alvin Neighbors to be imprisoned in the state Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, at hard labor for the period of Twenty (20) Years for the offense. It is therefore hereby considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said Alvin Neighbors who upon his oath in open court states his age to be 32 years be imprisoned in the state Penitentiary at McAlester in the State of Oklahoma and confined in said Penitentiary for a term of Twenty (20) years for said offense of First Degree Manslaughter said term of sentence to begin from the date of his delivery to the warden of said Penitentiary."

It is well that we note that the petitioner had served a sentence in the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., prior to imposition of the foregoing sentence he is now serving.

The petitioner bases his contention of wrongful imprisonment at the Granite Reformatory upon the provisions of Title 57 0. S. A. § 105, which reads as follows:

"All persons now convicted, or who may hereafter be convicted of a felony in this state, shall be by the trial judge sentenced to serve such term for which he may be

Page 187

convicted or sentenced at either the State Penitentiary located at McAlester, Oklahoma, or the Oklahoma State Reformatory located at Granite, Oklahoma, in the discretion of the trial judge passing the sentence; provided, that the trial judge shall sentence confirmed criminals or persons who have theretofore been convicted of a felony and served a term in any penitentiary either state or federal, to the State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, together with all persons whose term of confinement is for life or a term of ninety-nine years, and those who are convicted for manslaughter in the first degree, or of an assault with intent to kill when the offense was committed in a cruel or inhumane manner, and persons convicted for rape in the first degree; provided, further, that all other persons who are now or may hereafter be convicted of a felony may, in the discretion of the court passing sentence, be sentenced to the Oklahoma State Reformatory at Granite, Oklahoma. And the trial judge may, in determining whether the person convicted should be confined in the State Penitentiary or at the Oklahoma State Reformatory, take testimony for that purpose. However, no such testimony shall be taken until after conviction."

He contends that the determination of the place of confinement under section 105 is a judicial and not an administrative act.

The state contends that the transfer of the petitioner from the penitentiary at McAlester to the Reformatory at Granite is under the authority of Title 57 0. S. A. 132, reading as follows, to wit:

"The State Board of Public Affairs shall have the management and control of the penal institutions of this State, located at McAlester and Granite, and may pre-scribe rules and regulations for the conduct and management thereof. Said State Board of Public Affairs may, in its discretion, transfer prisoners from the State Penitentiary at McAlester to the reformatory at Granite,

Page 188

and may likewise transfer prisoners from the reformatory at Granite to the penitentiary at McAlester, when in its judgment it is necessary so to do; to sep4rate the confirmed and incorrigible criminals from tho~e who do not require the restrictions placed around them. that the confirmed criminal requires; * * *2Y

In determining the power of the Boaro of Affairs to make such transfers, as herein involved, it is necessary that we also consider the provision of Title 57 0. S. A. § 231, establishing the State Penitentiary, Which reads as follows~ to wit:

"There is hereby established at the city of McAlester,

in the county of Pittsburg, Oklahoma, a 'K~4tate Peniten- "

tiary. All persons convicted of any crime Whose punish

inent is by imprisonment in the penitentiary shall be

confined in the said State Penitentiary 4t McAlester,

except as otherwise provided by law."

And

, likewise, the provisions of Title ~7 0. S. A.

281, establishing the State Reformatory at C-4ranite, which read as follows, to wit:

"There is hereby created, located and established within one mile of the corporate limits Of the town of Granite, Greer county, the Oklahoma State Reformatory. All persons between the ages of sixteen and twenty-five years heretofore convicted of any crime NVhose punishment is by imprisonment shall be confined at either the Oklahoma State Reformatory or the State Plenitentiary in the discretion of the State Board of Prison Control* -and all persons between said ages hereafter convicted of crime, whose sentence to imprisonment si-1411 be not to exceed five years, shall be confined at either the Oklahoma State Reformatory or the State Penitentiary, in the discretion of the court sentencing said P(~rsons to imprisonment. The Oklahoma State Reformatory shall be

*Board of Prison Control is abolished and its duties are transferred to the State Board of Public Affairs by § 143, this Title.

Page 189

under the general charge and management of the said board of control."

Construing these statutes together, it is apparent that the penitentiary was established for imprisonment of those whose crime, under the law, is prescribed to be by confinement in the penitentiary. Title 57 0. S. A. § 105 thus makes it clear that the Legislature intended the penitentiary to be the place of confinement of "confirmed criminals or persons who have theretofore been convicted of a felony and served a term in any penitentiary either state or federal, as well as the place of confinement of persons sentenced to "confinement * * * for life," persons "convicted for manslaughter in the first degree," or an "assault with intent to kill * * * in a cruel and inhumane nianner," or, "persons convicted for rape in the first degree." All of the foregoing convicted persons must under the law be confined in the penitentiary at McAlester.

All other persons under the provision of this section in the discretion of the trial court may be sentenced to the reformatory. In the exercise of its discretion, the court may conduct a hearing and take testimony as an aid in determining the place of confinement. But, this latter provision is not applicable as to that class of persons expressly designated to be confined in the penitentiary at McAlester, as defined in section 105 and as heretofore

discussed.

In considering the provisions of Title 57 0. S. A.

281, supra, it is clear that the legislative purpose in establishing the reformatory was to provide a place of confinement for persons between the ages of 16 and 25 years, and whose sentence was not in excess of five years. But, whether a person whose sentence does not exceed five years is sent to the reformatory or the penitentiary is a

Page 190

matter within the sentencing COUrt7s discretion. However, all persons between the ages of 16 and 25 years who are sentenced by the court to the reformatory may not be permitted to serve their sentence there, for section 281 provides:

"All persons between the ages of sixteen and twentyfive heretofore convicted of any crime * * * shall be confined at either the Oklahoma State Reformatory or the State Penitentiary in the discretion of the State Board of Public Affairs."

It is apparent that the latter provision was intended to empower the State -Board of Public Affairs to effect the legislative intent as to the segregation of confirmed criminals, repeat violators, hardened criminals from first offenders ' and persons whose crime fhll within the eategory of penitentiary cases as defined in Title 57 0. S. A. § 105. This provision is expressly applicable where the court inadvertently sentences a penitentiary case to the reformatory or a reformatory case to the penitentiary. It is intended as an adjunct necessary to effect the intent of the Legislature with reference to classification and segregation of criminals.

Finally, we call attention to the section relied upon by the state under which transfers are effected, Title 57 0. S. A. § 132, supra. This section places control of penal institutions in the State Board of Public Affairs. Under the foregoing pertinent quotation from said statute, it is clear that this power of transfer from the reformatory to the penitentiary and vice versa is like the power of transfer under the provisions of Title 57 0. S. A. - § 281; only intended as an aid to effect,a legislative intent in classification and segregation of confirmed, hardened criminals, and repeat violators, r~gardless of age, from first offenders and young offenders between the ages of

Page 191

16 and 25 years. This conclusion is made more apparent by the statutory language:

"When in its judgment it is necessary so to do; to separate the confirmed and incorrigible criminals from those who do not require the restrictions placed around them that the confirmed criminal requires."

Neither courts nor the State Board of Public Affairs, in exercising the discretion granted under the provisions of Title 57 0. S. A. §~ 105, 132, and 281, are permitted to act arbitrarily, maliciously, or capriciously in effecting transfer; both must act within the limitations of their statutory powers. In this connection, the state contends that under the statutes, confinement is an administrative and not a judicial act. They cite in support thereof 15 Am. Jur. 187, § 155, as follows, to wit:

"Convicts are frequently transferred from one place of imprisonment to another, and it has been said that such a transfer is not such a judicial act that it cannot be performed by the Governor under authority of statute. With only little authority to the contrary, the validity of stat-

utes authorizing administrative boards, or a court, on their petition, under certain circumstances, to transfer to the state prison or other penal institution one originally sentenced to a reformatory has been sustained, notwithstanding objections that such statutes constituted a denial of due process, conferred judicial powers on an administrative body, or authorized the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment, etc., the courts having taken the view that the power conferred on the boards was one of administrative control or discipline, as distinguished from a judicial function, and that where statutes confer-

ring the power of transfer on the administrative boards are effective at the time of the sentence, the possibility of transfer is an incident impliedly annexed thereto."

Page 192

Cited in support of this statement is Rich v. Chamber. lain, 104 Mich. 436~ 62 N.W. 5841 27 L. R. A. 573, wherein the court said:

"It is contended that the transfer is a judicial act, and can only be performed by an officer clothed with judicial powers; that the determination of the circuit judge as to the prison in which the convict should be confined is a judicial determination; and that the prisoner has a right to remain in such prison for the period of his

imprisonment; or, at all events, that he cannot be summarily removed without a hearing. It is said that the law discriminates between the prisons; that certain offenders cannot be sentenced to the state prison and that the worst criminals cannot be sentenced to the house of correction, which is said to be designed-for the less hardened class of criminals. The Legislature has full authority to provide prisons, and to determine where prisoners may be sent; and the courts have no discretion as to the place to which

criminals may be sentenced except as the Legislature i it. Such discretion is lodged with the circuit judges,galviaeds they act judicially in its exercise. But this doctrine is a qualified one ' or rather the order of the judge is qualified by the law and such rules and regulations of the prisons as may have been lawfully adopted. Every sentence is subject to these, although it does not mention them."

See, also, Uram v. Roach, 47 Wyo. 335, 37 P.2d 793295 95 A. L. R. 1448 and at page 1455, annotations of cases construing similar provisions to the same effect. With these statements of the law, we agree but we must observe that while the matter of custody and confinement of one convicted of crime is an administrative matter and not a judicial act, the State Board of Public Affairs must act in fulfilling its administrative duties in a manner that accords with the power conferred in the statutes. More, over, both the courts and the State Board of Public Affairs, in exercising the discretion as to place of confinement of convicts as conferred by the statutes, must do so

Page 193

with due regard to the limitations placed upon them in the statutes and both should strive to keep the exercise of such discretion within the ambit of the statute.

In a proper case, the court exercising its discretion, may sentence a person either to the State Penitentiary or to the State Reformatory, in conformity with the provisions of Title 57 0. S. A. § 133, may sentence such person to the nearest penitentiary. However, it was not the intent of the Legislature in enacting this provision that the courts give meaning to this section in such manner as to conflict with and negative the plain provisions of sections 105 and 281 in relation to classification and segregation of convicts and their place of confinement. It is clear that sections 132 and 133 must be construed as ancillary to sections 105 and 281, which may be called, "statutes of basic classification".

In light of what has been heretofore said, the petitioner's contention that the provisions of Title 57 0. S. A. §§ 105 and 132 are in conflict, and § 132 is unconstitutional, is without merit. We believe that the foregoing analysis of said statutes demonstrates that they can be harmonized. It is the duty of the court to construe statutes as a whole and where possible, to give meaning to the legislative intent of each of them. That can readily be done in this instance. However, the petitioner's contention that his confinement in the reformatory is contrary to law is meritorious. The fact is, he was convicted of the

crime of first degree manslaughter and was properly sentenced by the Honorable S. J. Clendinning, to 20 years in

the penitentiary. Thus, he falls within the statutory classification of those persons whom the Legislature defined as subject to be confined in the penitentiary at McAlester. Moreover, the petitioner is not eligible to confinement in the State Reformatory since he is a repeat violator, which

Page 194

makes him ineligible under the provisions of Title 57 0. S. A. § 105. There is no discretion granted to either the courts or the State Board of Public Affairs as to the place of confinement of convicts, such as the petitioner. The statutes clearly classify him as a subject for confinement in the penitentiary. The State Board of Public Affairs, in transferring the petitioner from the State Penitentiary at McAlester to the State Reformatory at Granite, acted beyond the scope of the discretionary power conferred upon it by the statutes.