Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
GA-0960
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 2012Background
- Attorney General asks whether cash bail refunds under art. 17.02 are compatible with section 117.055's administrative fee.
- Bail bonds may be cash deposits or sureties; cash bail is a cash bond deposited with the court.
- Art. 17.02(1) refund language was amended in 2011 to specify refunds “in the amount reflected on the receipt.”
- Section 117.055 imposes a five percent handling fee, up to $50, on registry withdrawals.
- Prior AGOs held that 117.055 conflicted with art. 17.02 and prevailed, but the 2011 amendment requires reconsideration; the opinion supersedes those prior views.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does art. 17.02(1) require full refund despite 117.055? | Abbott argued 17.02(1) controls and requires refund of the receipt amount. | Johnson's view was that 117.055 fees could be deducted. | Yes; 17.02(1) prevails and requires full refund per receipt. |
| May clerks deduct 117.055 fees before refund to the receipt holder? | Abbott argued no deduction allowed under the amended art. 17.02. | Johnson raised concerns about handling fees. | No; the amendment supersedes the fee deduction. |
Key Cases Cited
- McConathy v. State, 528 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (bail bond purposes and refunds emphasized)
- In re Tharp, 351 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. App.-Austin 2011) (context on bonds and forms)
- Melton v. State, 993 S.W.2d 95 (Tex. 1999) (cash bail bonds are funds deposited for refund)
- Clark v. Young, 787 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1990) (statutory conflict principles in amendments)