Texas Attorney General Opinion: JM-111 Page: 1 of 6
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Attorney General of Texas
Supreme Court Building
P. O. Box 12548
Austin, TX. 78711- 2548
December 30, 1983
Mr. Ruben M. Torres
Board of Pardons and Paroles
P. O. Box 13401, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Opinion No. JM-lll
Re: Construction of section
21(a) of article 42.12 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure
714 Jackson, Suite 700
Dallas, TX. 75202-4506
4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160
El Paso, TX. 79905-2793
'10 Texas, Suite 700
.ouston, TX. 77002-3111
806 Broadway, Suite 312
Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479
4309 N. Tenth, Suite B
McAllen, TX. 78501-1685
200 Main Plaza, Suite 400
San Antonio, TX. 78205-2797
An Equal Opportunity/
Affirmative Action Employer
Dear Mr. Torres:
You have asked three questions regarding the arrest, detention,
and transfer of parolees pursuant to article 42.12, section 21(a) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to give a proper perspective
on the issues, a brief discussion of the applicable legislative
enactments and case law is necessary.
As originally enacted, the first paragraph of section 21 of
article 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had read as follows:
Upon order by the Governor, the Board is
authorized to issue a warrant for the return of
any paroled prisoner to the institution from which
he was paroled. Such warrant shall authorize all
officers named therein to return such paroled
prisoner to actual custody in the penal
institution from which he was paroled. Pending
hearing, as hereinafter provided, upon any charge
of parole violation, the prisoner shall remain
incarcerated in such institution.
Acts 1965, 59th Leg., ch. 722, at 496.
In 1972 the United States Supreme Court declared that release on
parole is a form of liberty that may not be denied without due process
of law. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972); see also Gagnon v.
Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). In Morrissey the court held:
due process would seem to require that some
minimal inquiry be conducted at or reasonably near
the place of the alleged parole violation or
arrest and as promptly as convenient after arrest
while information is fresh and sources are
available . . . . Such an inquiry should be seen
Here’s what’s next.
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: JM-111, text, 1983; (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth272551/m1/1/: accessed December 16, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.