Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
GA-1077
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 2014Background
- In 1986 a defendant pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by contact and received two years of deferred adjudication community supervision under Art. 42.12.
- The court later issued an order under the former Art. 42.12, §5(c) terminating the deferred adjudication early and discharging the defendant.
- The sex-offender registration regime in Chapter 62 did not exist at the time of the early termination, but Chapter 62 applies retroactively to "reportable conviction[s] or adjudication[s]" occurring on or after Sept. 1, 1970.
- Chapter 62 defines "reportable conviction or adjudication" to include deferred adjudications for enumerated offenses, including indecency with a child by contact.
- §5(c) expressly provides that an early dismissal may not be deemed a "conviction" for purposes of disqualifications or disabilities imposed by law, but is silent about the effect on "adjudication" for other statutes.
- The AG concludes that an early termination under the former §5(c) does not eliminate the deferred adjudication’s potential status as an "adjudication" under Chapter 62 and therefore likely does not relieve the duty to register.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an early termination under former Art. 42.12 §5(c) removes a deferred adjudication from being a "reportable conviction or adjudication" under Chapter 62 | The early termination means the disposition "may not be deemed a conviction," so no reportable conviction exists | Chapter 62 defines "reportable conviction or adjudication" to include deferred adjudications regardless of early termination; §5(c) does not say it removes "adjudication" status | Court (AG opinion): §5(c) removes conviction status but is silent as to adjudication; likely does not affect Chapter 62 applicability — deferred adjudication remains reportable |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. State, 385 S.W.3d 93 (Tex. App.-Waco 2012) (discussing applicability of Chapter 62 to pre-enactment offenses)
- Reynolds v. State, 423 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (affirming treatment of retroactive application issues under Chapter 62)
- Cuellar v. State, 70 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (post-conviction early discharge can erase conviction for some collateral consequences)
- FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000) (legislature’s drafting choices inform statutory construction)
- In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2013) (statutory interpretation starts with plain language)
- Acker v. Tex. Water Comm'n, 790 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. 1990) (legislature acts with knowledge of existing law)
- State v. Juvrud, 187 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (distinguishing discharge of post-conviction supervision from early termination of deferred adjudication)