Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
GA-1035
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 2013Background
- The Office of Court Administration asked whether amendments to three Texas statutes (two Senate bills and one House bill) enacted during the 83rd Legislature irreconcilably conflict and how to reconcile them with respect to confidentiality of juvenile non-traffic, fine-only misdemeanor records.
- Senate Bills 393 and 394 (effective Sept. 1, 2013) amended articles 44.2811 and 45.0217 and Fam. Code §58.00711 to make confidential records "relating to a child who is convicted of and has satisfied the judgment for or who has received a dismissal after deferral of disposition for" such offenses.
- House Bill 528 (effective Jan. 1, 2014) amended the same provisions to make confidential records "relating to a child who is charged with, is convicted of, is found not guilty of, had a charge dismissed for, or is granted deferred disposition for" such offenses.
- The question presented was whether the Senate and House amendments conflict, whether the Senate bills took effect Sept. 1, 2013 and would be supplanted by the House bill on Jan. 1, 2014, and whether the House bill requires closing proceedings or public dockets in affected cases.
- The Attorney General analyzed statutory text, harmonization principles for same-session amendments, and common meanings of "record," "file," and "docket."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Senate Bills irreconcilably conflict with the House Bill | The Office of Court Administration asserted potential conflict and uncertainty about reconciling concurrent amendments | Legislature enacted three bills amending same provisions; harmonization required if possible | No irreconcilable conflict; amendments can be harmonized and create overlapping/conflicting coverage without mutual impossibility of compliance |
| Scope of article 44.2811 after amendments | Concern that new House language (covers charged/convicted/appealed children) conflicts with Senate formulation (convicted/received dismissal after deferral or satisfied judgment) | Senate and House provisions differ but establish independent conditions for confidentiality | Both sets of amendments operate; they create three independent confidentiality conditions under art. 44.2811 and do not conflict |
| Scope of art. 45.0217 and Fam. Code §58.00711 after amendments | Concern whether records must be withheld differently under competing bills | House Bill's broader list (charged, convicted, found not guilty, dismissed, or deferred) includes Senate conditions | No conflict: House Bill is broader and includes Senate conditions; courts may withhold additional records under House Bill without violating Senate provisions |
| Effect on courtroom proceedings and dockets (must courts close proceedings and remove/withhold dockets?) | Question whether House Bill requires closing justice/municipal/juvenile court proceedings and prevents public posting of dockets | Statutes make records/files confidential but do not expressly make live proceedings confidential; "docket" can mean formal case record or public schedule | Proceedings likely remain public (Code of Criminal Procedure presumes open trials). Formal case dockets (the court's record/file) are confidential; administrative schedule dockets (lists of pending cases) likely are not subject to confidentiality |
Key Cases Cited
- TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011) (statutory construction focuses on legislative intent)
- City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2008) (use common meaning and context when statute does not define terms)
- State v. Jackson, 376 S.W.2d 341 (Tex. 1964) (authority on irreconcilable statutory conflict and impossibility of compliance)
- Smith v. Davis, 426 S.W.2d 827 (Tex. 1968) (courts avoid presuming the Legislature enacted a meaningless provision)