*1 STOREY, Before WHITHAM and ROWE, JJ.
ROWE, Justiсe. rehearing motion for State’s withdrawn, opinionis granted. Our former opinion. following is now our appeals a conviction for theft Appellant punishment at for which the court assessed jail pursuant negotiated to a proceedings bargain agreement. All magistrate appointed held before a were to TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. (Vernon Un- Supp.1982-1983). art. 1918c TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. der 1979), (Vernon trial court 44.02 permission appeal. In her sole appellant of error contends ground which conducted the “the tribunal *2 judgment against entered appellant in convicting der appellant and assessing a pending cause improperly was consti- punishment days’ of 180 confinement in the tuted in violation of the Cоnstitution of the County Dallas Jail. This order also denied State of Texas.” Because the record dis- appellant’s application probation. for The appellant’s closes that application pro- for judge of the Criminal District Court of bation made at phase County, Dallas on the day, signed same the proceedings upon solely was acted by a judgment. final judgment That reads: magistrate, empowered not under Article having Defendant been in indicted 1918c to deny probation by decree, his own the above entitled and numbered cause we appellant’s sustain ground of error. for the offense of proper- Theft of Accordingly, we reverse and remand. ty of the value of or more $200 but less Appellant was initially indicted for the $10,000, a Third-Degree Felony, felony offense of theft of of a indictment, charged in the value of at least $200.00 but less than called, and this being day cause $10,000.00. The indictment was returned appeared by her assistant Criminal to Criminal District Court No. 4 of Dallas Mitchell, Attorney Charlie County, and duly thereafter transferred to Carolyn Kelley, ap- Defendant Kate the Criminal District Court of Coun- Dallas peared person in and his counsel Robert Thus, ty. the Criminal District Court of Cady, being present also parties and both County Dallas had over the ready announced and the Defendant in pursuant case to Article Section 8 of the writing open and in in Court hav- Constitution of the State of Texas. Under ing right waived by jury, his of trial such general order by entered the Criminal being waiver approval the consent and County District Court of Dallas the Court and now entered of record on 1918c, to article the case was referred to the minutes of the such Court and waiver Magistrate’s County. Court of Dallas being approval with the consent and When the called the case to Attorney Criminal District trial the State moved to reduce the offense him, writing, signed by in to the lesser included offense of theft of papers and filed in the of this cause property of a value of more than but $20.00 plea before the Defendant entered his $200.00, less than a misdеmeanor. The herein, the Defendant was arr- approved State’s motion was aigned open pleaded guilty and in Court by magistrate. taking Before the indictment; charge contained in the plea, appellant executed a waiver of her thereupon the Defendant was admon- right by jury to trial which was consented consequences ished the Court of the approved by magistrate. Appel- to and plea per- of the said and the Defendant signed lant confession in which entering plea, plainly sisted in said and it appearance, she waived the confrontation appearing that the Defend- Court and cross-examination of witnesses and mentally competent ant is and that he is testimony consented to the introduction of plea by any making uninfluenced in said affidavits, orally, by statements written fear, persua- by any consideration of documentary of witnesses and other evi- sion, hope pardon prompt- or delusive magistrate signed dence. The an order ing guilt, plea him to the said confess his waiver, approving appellant’s consent and accepted by the Court and now plea bargain confession. The of record herein of entered agreement in provided that return for a open the Defendant. The Defendant guilty would receive a having writing, waived the sentence of confinement the Dallas indictment, appear- reading of the County Jail of 180 for a misdemeanor ance, confrontation, and cross-examina- right jail with the to serve the witnesses, agreed that the Appellant applied tion of on the weekends. magistrate signed stipulated an or- and consent- evidence County, Texas, immediately, testimony by said ed the introduction affidavits, written statements of witness- Jail of evidence, documentary any Days,, es and court costs of $68.00 [sic] having and such waiver and consent been provisions of the law accordance with approved by writing the Court State, the said of said Defendant and, cause; papers filed in the jail remanded until said Sheriff can having, heard the Defendant’s obey the of this sentence. direction *3 indictment, reading the of the waiver of It and DE- is further ADJUDGED plea thereto, the Defendant’s the evi- the by this Court that sentence CREED submitted, the of argument dence and date, pronounced begin shall this herein counsel, opinion from evi- is of and that Defendant is credit dence that the is submitted Defendant beginning on for time served date of guilty charged. as to 4/16/82 —Defendant Serve Time IT THEREFORE BY IS ADJUDGED Consecutive Weekends. COURT, THE the said that Defendant is ** Upon Attorney Motion of the is guilty of Theft property of the offense of permitted try to this case on the lesser included of of or more but less than $20 the value property the value $20 of: Theft of $200, Misdemeanor, “A” in a Class as $200, “A” or more than a Class Misde- but less indictment.* n in meanor, cluded as in the indictment. included as found that the said judgment this noteworthy It is that while said Defendant committed offense on magistrate’s expressly adopts most of the 1981, September, 14th day of that any rulings, way it refer in to fails to punishment hereby is assessed at 180 probation. appellant’s application for Days in Jail of judgment There is no indication that Texas, County, that Dallas the Defend- the district court ever considered the ant punished be accordance with same matter of and that the State of Texas and do have proceed description With the said Defendant recover of all costs us, ings below we consider first before prosecution expended, for exe- which appointed pursuant a magistrate whether cution will issue. only a Article is a court or surro 1918c the said THEREUPON Defendant gate for a court. district any- asked the Court whether he had instrumentality A court is an sover- thing say why said sentence should judicial pow- of its eignty, repository against him, not he pronounced er, authority adjudge as to the thereof, nothing answered bar and it rights property or between ad- appearing to the Court that the Defend- presence of a or versaries. The competent mentally ant and under- an ele- judges as essential English standing language, of a A “court” was defined ment court. presenсe proceeded in the of said incorporeal being, by Bacon “an to be Defendant, being his counsel also pres- requires for its existence which present, pronounce against sentence competent num- judges or a ence him, follows: as ber of them.” IT THE OF THE COURT ORDER IS 202, Fowlkes, 135 Tenn. Mengel Box v. Defendant, Co. who ad- has been said 91, Texas, (1916). The State 186 S.W. judged of Theft of to be courts, sovereign, district more created but less $20 the value courts, Misdemeanor, in Arti- $200, in- of those provided judges “A” a Class Y, indictment.** 1 and 7 of its Constitution cluded in the cle Sections power all criminal judicial its has been assessed whose felony in dis- grade of those cases of the at confinement the Coun- the Court CONST, §V, trict courts. TEX. for 180 ty Dallas Jail of magistrates ap- Accordingly, we hold Days by the Sheriff of Dallas confined pointed pursuant to Article 1918c are nei- Legislature may establish such judges, ther courts nor but individuals other courts as it deem necessary possessed qualifications prescribe of certain appoint- organi- thereof, perform ed to zation certain duties jur- for instrumen- conform the isdiction are, talities of the of the district and State of Texas that inferior indeed, courts thereto. true Accordingly, courts. we con- clude that is no more than a V, Section of that Constitution surrogate for the district court. The State provides for the creation of dis- concedеs as much for it tells inus its brief tricts and for the election of that “the magistrates of are those district courts. Article Section 8 agents judges, of the district but are not of that provides Constitution that “[t]he judges, themselves or nor has art. 1918c District Court shall original jurisdic- have statutory created a tion in all court. All art. criminal grade 1918c cases of the felony.” does procedure is authorize a We decline to whereby the treat deci- *4 concerning grant sions constituted district or denial judges may court of probation after dispose unimpor- of a of certain matters before them.” tant administrative matters busy which When probation the matter of judges may delegate entirely to others. placed before a judge, may district court he We conclude that when the Constitution of dispose by granting of it probation “when the State of Texas created district courts appear it shall to the satisfaction of the vested of case justice court that the ends of and the best courts, in one of those that Constitution public interests of the as well as the de requires person occupying that the the of- fendant will be thereby....” subserved judge fice of of that court—and not a sur- 42.13, TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. rogate appointed by judge —make § (Vernon Supp.1982-1983). ques The judicial concerning decisions “the ends of tion then judicial arises whether decisions justice” and “the pub- best interests of the сoncerning “the justice,” ends of and “the lic” and “the best interests ... of the de- public” best interests of the and the “best § required by fendant” Article 42.13 interests of required ... the defendant” by Accordingly, we hold that under the Consti- § 42.13 3 be made a surro tution of the State of Texas gate. We conclude that decisions of the Criminal District of concerning “the justice” ends of and “the County judicial power held the of the State public” best interests of the and “the best of Texas to make a final decision on wheth- interests required by ... of the defendant” appellant probation er should be on § Article 42.13 3 cannot left to a surro § pursuant to Article 42.13 3 and that this gate under the Constitution of the State of judicial powеr delegated cannot be to a Texas. Article 1 of the Section Consti surrogate. By impermissible virtue of an provides: tution of Texas application of has Article 1918c judicial power of this State shall probation solely by been denied Supreme be vested in one in holding power one not then Appeals, Court of in deny probation.1 Criminal Courts of State of Texas to Thus Courts, Appeals, in District in we conclude that the “tribunal” which con- Courts, Courts, applica- Commissioners ducted the appellant’s on Peace, probation finality Courts Justices of the and in tion for and denied with provided by constitutionally such other courts that motion was one not reason, law. authorized to so act. For such however, 7(c) provision, 1. We are not unmindful of section of article committal.” Resort to this provides approval purposes, a 1918c which for automatic not validate for constitutional does magistrate’s ruling where, by magistrates upon action taken which the record retran- on a matter it, referring presented smittal to a district court makes no "mod- fails to disclose was ever ification, correction, reversal, rejection, or re- a final decision. appellant’s ground busy judges may delegate sole must be which error matters [Emphasis entirely to others.” sustained. added]. Reversed and remanded. Thus, majority’s opinion I read imply that the Constitution WHITHAM, Justice, concurring. if Texas would not be violated at the end office, day judge alone a district in his I I concur the result. was the author desk, picks up pen, himself his his seats at opinion. rehearing of our former On I places signature upon each his of a stack of circulated to the other this members of judgments in the form shown on incorrect panel opinion a new draft to cor- order denying record but with sentence my opinion rect errors in our former result- probation, hands those executed forms ing placing language from certain incor- In thereby his clerk and denies rectly within attributed State’s brief stamp” judicial a “rubber my view changes quotation marks. Other permitted system which is not under my to correct errors and the addi- accept I this state. cannot Constitution (1), tion of footnote one draft that new system which district opinion opinion. was identical to our former permitted “sign judges are off” on their majority’s present opinion rehearing judicial powers exercised number my opinion new draft are much the appointed surrogates. system court Such a appen- For I comparison same. attach as courts is one which district create other my copy opinion dix “A” hereto a draft appoint district courts and rehearing. interpretation courts. that is the those If *5 express my I write to that in concern made оf to be TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. changes sum the and made omissions (Vernon Supp.1982-1983), art. 1918c then it majority my opinion the draft a exhibit face is unconstitutional on its under Article willingness part on majority the to §§ 1, 7 of and 8 of the Constitution stamp” sys- approve judicial of a “rubber Texas. This the part tem. concern is born in of recognize Leg- sympathize I and the with majority my that the fact deletes from the islature’s desire to alleviate overwhelm- opinion language commenting my draft on pressures sys- the criminal ing justice general the trial court’s referral order of grow- and at the time reduce the tem same Magistrate’s “to the Court of Coun- system must ing judicial cost of that ty, part is My Texas”. concern born in of increasing disрose of ever number judg- majority the fact that the treats a provisions criminal cases. Constitutional incorrectly ment which certain describes pow- judicial of this State’s exercise having as events occurred before however, er, to social cannot be sacrificed the Criminal District Court of Dallas Thus, my views expediency. economic magistrate’s as a ratification opinion expressed concurring as in this are My rulings. part concern is born in appendix “A” attached. and on majority significant fact that the makes a my repeating one of one word addition A APPENDIX I to sentences. write decline “[W]e rehearing is The State’s motion grant involving treat decisions correctly points out an granted. probation after a or denial opinion in which we error our former unimportant matters as administrative lan- quotation marks certain place within busy judges may delegate to oth- which Our guage to the State’s brief. attributed repeats language majority ers.” the fol- opinion is withdrawn and former “entirely” so of the word addition lowing opinion. is now our majority’s sentence reads “[W]e for theft involving Appellant appeals a conviction to decisions decline treat at assessed probation after for which court grant or denial negotiated jail pursuant unimportant guilty as administrative quired that Magistrate be, such and is plea bargain agreement. proceedings All hereby, authorized to: were held magistrate appointed before a (a) judgment render a plea; such pursuant to TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. (b) defendant; sentence the (Vernon Supp.1982-1983). 1918c Un- (c) provide for such conditions pro- der TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. bation, restitution, including (Vernon 1979), 44.02 the trial court appropriate by deemed Magistrate, appellant permission appeal. In her sole applicable; if ground of error contends that (d) approve such waivers or documents “the hearing tribunal which conducted the might appropriate; judgment against and entered appellant in (e) sign pending improperly cause was behalf of the consti- Court and tuted violation of the cause to be Constitution of the delivered to defendant the Probation, State of Texas.” appellant’s appli- Because Condition of applicable. if probation cation for was heard and denied (2) revocations, Agreed probation solely by magistrate appointed Ar- under Magistrate shall exercise all of the 1918c, ticle we conclude that Article 1918c powers enumerated in 1918c V.A.C.S. as is applied unconstitutional as in the necessary proper by be deemed case. Accordingly, we reverse and re- addition, Magistrate, such and in mand. Court deems that it is Appellant initially indicted for the proper perfоrmance for the efficient offense of theft of of a Mag- duties herein that such value of at least $200.00 but less than be, hereby, istrate and is authorized to: $10,000.00. The indictment was filed Octo- (a) make a finding as to whether such 20, 1981, ber returned Criminal Dis- probation revoked; trict Court No. (b) authorize bonds if such thereafter transferred to the Criminal continued; Thus, County. Court of Dallas (c) Criminal District Court of Dallas change probation; the conditions of had over the case (d) reduce the sentence of the defend- *6 Section 8 of the Constitution of agreement; pursuant ant to an 1, the State of Texas. Effective October (e) defendant; sentence the 1981, the Criminal District Court of Dallas (f) approve such waivers or documents general entered order of referral might appropriate; and as be Magistrate’s “to the Court of Dallas Coun- (g) the sign on behalf of the Court ty, pursuant Texas” to Article 1918c. That Revoking Order Probation. order reads: (3) hearings other and matters as Such IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all not may by the Court and be determined indicted, cases which have been or have law, lim- prohibited including, but not by duly by had such indictment waived the to, hearings on bond forfeitures. ited defendant, assigned and this are Court (4) general may, under this The Court hereby Magistrate’s referred to the referral, execute, original by or order of County, of Dallas Texas Court additional Orders of signature, facsimile V.A.C.S., following to Art. the 1918c Magistrate’s Court as to Referral to said proceedings: specific directing that said causes and (1)Negotiated pleas before Magistrate’s report only specif- Court Court, Magistrate the the exer- and shall acts, issues, particular or receive ic do powers all of enumerated in Art. cise only. report on evidence and neces- 1918c V.A.C.S. be deemed (5) empow- sary Magistrate, Magistrate hereby proper by and such and Each addition, stead, ered, place in that it is to take my the Court deems in and ac- necessary proper for the efficient knowledgements and and file said documents performance of the duties herein re- by filed the District as are called, being day and this cause Texas, County, of Dallas Clerk appeared by her assistant Criminal accomplish purposes Mitchell, Attorney District Charlie set forth. hereinabove Carolyn Kelley, ap- Kate Defendant Notwithstanding foregoing, peared in and his counsel Robert Court shall maintain control and authori- being parties Cady, present also and both ty by over all causes covered this Order ready in announced and the Defendant unless and until the same is delivered to writing open in in Court hav- person and Magistrate’s by Court for action said right by jury, trial such ing his waived Magistrate’s Court. being approval the consent and waiver called the case to The and now entered of record on the Court At time the April trial on waiver the minutes of Court such to reduce the offense to the State moved being approval the consent and included offense of theft of lesser Attorney the Criminal more than less of a value of but $20.00 him, signed writing, by in $200.00, a misdemeanor. State’s papers filed in the of this cause by approved motion was plea the Defendant entered his before taking plea, magistrate. Prior to the herein, was arr- the Defendant right to appellant executed a waiver of her open pleaded guilty aigned and in Court by jury consented to and trial which was indictment; in charge contained the magistrate. approved Appellаnt thereupon the Defendant was admon- she signed confession which consequences ished Court appearance, confrontation waived per- plea of the said and the Defendant and con- cross-examination witnesses entering plea, plainly and it sisted said testimony the introduction sented to appearing to the Court that the Defend- affidavits, by statements orally, by written mentally competent ant is and that he is documentary evi- of witnesses and by any making plea said magistrate signed an order uninfluenced dence. The waiver, fear, by any persua- approving appellant’s consent consideration of bargain plea sion, pardon promрt- confession. The hope or delusive agreement provided that in return for a guilt, plea the said ing him to confess his guilty appellant would receive accepted by the and is now of confinement sentence as the herein of entered of record misdemeanor Jail of 180 for a open The Defendant the Defendant. right jail to serve the with the having writing, waived Appellant applied for on the weekends. indictment, appear- reading of the magistrate signed an order confrontation, ance, and cross-examina- appellant, assessing punish- convicting witnesses, agreed that tion *7 in the Dallas ment of 180 stipulated be and consent- evidence aрpellant’s appli- County denying Jail by testimony ed to the introduction of magistrate also probation. The cation for affidavits, statements of witness- written directing appellant to serve signed an order evidence, documentary any es and week- jail confinement on consecutive the having been waiver and consent and such District judge of the Criminal ends. The writing and by the approved Court day, County, on the same of Dallas Court cause; and, the the papers filed in the of judgment judgment. final That signed the Defendant’s having, heard the Court reads: indictment, reading of the of the waiver having indicted been The Defendant thereto, evi- Defendant’s cause and numbered above entitled submittеd, argument of and the dence proper- felony of Theft of offense for the the evi- counsel, opinion from is of the less more but or ty $200 of the value Defendant is that the dence submitted Felony, as $10,000, Third-Degree a than charged. guilty as in the indictment. charged 4/16/82 —Defendant to Serve Time on IT IS THEREFORE ADJUDGED BY Consecutive Weekends. COURT, THE that the said Defendant is ** Upon Motion of Attorney guilty of the offense of Theft of property the District is permitted try this case on the lesser included of the value or more but $20 less than property of: Theft of of the value of $20 $200, Misdemeanor, a Class “A” as in- $200, or more but less than a Class "A” Misde- meanor, as included in the indictment. cluded in the indictment.** as found the said noteworthy judgment It is that the fails to Defendant committed said offense on the appel- mention the and denial of day 1981, 14th September, that the Also, application lant’s it is punishment hereby is assessed at 180 noteworthy judgment incorrectly that the Days confinement in County Jail of having describes certain events as occurred Texas, County, that the Defend- judge of the before Criminal punished ant accordance with same County. of Dallas It is Court obvious from and that the State of Texas do have and the record that such events actu- described recover of the said Defendant all costs ally place, took not of that before prosecution expended, for which exe- court, magistrate. but before cution will issue. description proceedings With the THEREUPON said Defendant was us, first whether below before we consider asked any- the Court whether he had magistrate appointed pursuant to Article thing say why said sentence should surrogate for a 1918c is court or pronounced him, against not be and he district court. thereof, nothing answered in bar and it instrumentality A court is an of sover- appearing to the that the Court Defend- eignty, repository judicial pow- of its mentally competent ant and under- er, authority adjudge as to the with standing English language, property ad- rights person or between proceeded in presence of said presence of a or versariеs. The Defendant, being his counsel also judges necessary as an essential ele- present, pronounce against sentence was defined ment of a court. A “court” him, as follows: incorporeal being, “an by Bacon to be IT THE THE IS ORDER OF COURT pres- requires for its existence which Defendant, that said has who been ad- competent num- judges ence of the or a judged to be of Theft of of them.” ber of the value of or more $20 but less 202, Fowlkes, 135 Tenn. Mengel Box v.Co. $200, Misdemeanor, a Class “A” in- as (1916). conclude 186 S.W. We cluded in the indictment.** Texas, sovereign, has and whose has been assessed authority to judicial power, none of its with by the Court at confinement in the Coun- prop- rights adjudge as to the Texas, ty County, Jail for 180 adversaries, magistrates erty between Days confined Sheriff Dallas 1918c. The appointed pursuant to Article Texas, immediately, in said created dis- sovereign, State of Jail of Dallas for 180 courts, provided trict Days,, and court costs of $68.00 [sic] 1 and courts, those in Article Sections provisions accordance of the law placed its of its Constitution State, of said and the said Defendant is grade cases of power in all criminal *8 jail remanded to until said Sheriff can TEX. courts. in those district obey the direction of this sentence. CONST, §Y, Accordingly, we hold 8. DE- It is further ADJUDGED and Ar- pursuant to magistrates appointed that by this that the sentence judges, CREED courts nor are neither ticle 1918c date, pronounced begin herein shall this of certain possessed only individuals but and that the Defendant is credit certain perform qualifications appointed beginning for time served on date of of the State duties for instrumentalities (1) hearings; conduct indeed, are, courts. Ac- Texas that true evidence; (2) hear conclude, contrary to the cordingly, we (3) production compel the of relevant referral, wording general order of evidence; “Mag- create a Article 1918c does not (4) admissibility of evi- rule on of Dallas Texas.” istrate’s Court dence; magistrate is further that the We conclude (5) appearance issue summons for the surrogate for the district no morе than a witnesses; it as much for The State concedes court. witnesses; (6) examine magistrates of that “the tells us its brief (7) hearing; witnesses for the swear district agents are of the (8) judges, findings of fact on the evi- judges, are not themselves make but statutory dence; art. 1918c created a nor has 1918c does is authorize court. All art. law; (9) formulate conclusions of whereby duly constituted procedure (10) motions; pretrial on rule may dispose of certain court district (11) rulings, recommend the orders or then question them.” The matters before case; judgment to be made in the magistrate can and to what the arises as (12) proceedings all regulate a hear- district for the constituted cannot do magistrates; ing before the present case. court in the (13) all take do acts and all measures need con- dispose appeal, of this we To necessary proper for the efficient magistrate authority of the sider performance of the duties appellant should to decide whether order of referral. permits probation. Article 1918c placed on surrogate as follows: referral (b) The order of referral limit the (a) a court hav- judge powers magistrate 4. Sec. and direct appointed provided ing magistrate magistrate report only specific is- magistrate may refer to the sues, acts, this Act particular do or receive and involv- any proceedings case for criminal report only. on evidence The order ing: place hearing, set the time
(1) negotiated pleas closing hearing, before prescribe a date for the court; provide filing for a date for the magistrate’s findings. forfeitures; (2) bond motions; (3) pretrial (c) magistrate appointed A under this (4) cor- postconviction writs habeas may not Act to whom a case is referred pus; ruling any fact enter a issue of law or trials; (5) conducting examining of which the determination thereon could (6) require any matters that result in dismissal or the dismiss- except as proper, A pending prosecution. al of a criminal deems (b) of however, Subsection provided magistrate may, findings, make otherwise conclusions, this section. and recommendations on issues, scope within the of the order to a such (b) may judge refer In no event of referral. permitting case magistrate a criminal over a trial on preside From the date the indictment was filed jury. merits, or without a either with signed judgment, until he magistrate, the (c) to a To refer a case of Dallas Coun- the Criminal District Court of referral an order judge shall issue ty figure disposition in the was an absent magistrate. duties of the specifying the Clearly, the present case. Criminal intended Following referral: District Court nothing more to do with the have (a) provided Sub- Except as Sec. “Magis- it referred to the section, case once was (c) (b) sections general order of trate’s Court” because referred case is magistrate to whom a provided referral Criminal may: *9 prescribe organi- County maintains control thereof, may jur- zation conform the authority over the case “unless and of the district and other inferior isdiction Magis- until the same is delivered to courts thereto. by Magis- trate’s Court for action said V, 7, of that Article Section Constitution Thus, [Emphasis trate’s Court.” added]. judicial provides for the creation of dis- the Criminal District Court of Dallas Coun- and for the election of tricts present though ty treated the case as it had V, those district courts. Article Section 8 another court for final been referred to provides that that Constitution disposition. admits as much “[t]he The State brief, original jurisdic- District Court shall have when it tells us its “all actions regard grade this cause tion in all criminal cases of the by Magistrate.” judicial were conducted One felony.” We decline to treat deci- not to of those actions was decision involving grant pro- or denial of sions place appellant probation. unimportant after a bation
After a guilty, judges busy judges of courts administrative matters which having original jurisdiction of criminal may delegate to others. conclude that We cases, by where the assessed is of Texas when the Constitution of State both, in jail by by fine or jurisdic- created district courts and vested may place probation the defendant on present case in one of those tion of appear “when it shall to the satisfaction of courts, requires that Constitution justice the court that the ends of and the judge of person occupying the office of public best interests of the as well as the surrogate appointed that court—and not a thereby....” defendant will be subserved judicial decisions by —make 42.13, TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. justice” and “the involving “the ends of § (Vernon Supp.1982-1983). ques- The “the best public” of the best interests tion then arises whether decisions by required interests ... of the defendant” involving justice,” “the ends of and “the § Accordingly, we hold 42.13 public” best interests of the and the “best that under the Constitution of State interests ... of the by defendant” Texas of the Criminal Dis- § may Article 42.13 3 be made a surro- judi- trict Court of Dallas held the gate. conclude that We decisions power cial of the State of Texas to deter- involving justice” “the ends of and “the mine whether should be public” interests of the “the best best § probation pursuant to Article 42.13 3 and required by interests ... of the defendant” judicial power delegated that this cannot be § Article 42.13 3 cannot left to a surro- surrogate. By to a virtue of the trial gate under Constitution of the State of application appel- court’s of Article 1918c Texas. Article Section of the Consti- probation, lаnt has been denied but not provides: tution of Texas holding judicial power officer judicial power The of this shall deny State of Texas to We Supreme in one in one be vested hold, therefore, that Article 1918cis uncon- Appeals, in Court of Criminal Courts of applied stitutional as in the case.1 Courts, Appeals, in District Thus we conclude that the tribunal which Courts, Courts, in Commissioners appellant’s hearing conducted and denied Peace, Courts Justices probation her improperly constituted provided such other courts as in violation of the Constitution of the State
law. Legislature may reason, establish such appellant’s of Texas. For such sole other courts as it deеm ground of error must be sustained. rehearing 1918c, 9, 1. In its motion for the State asserts: pertinent part: cle reads in § "If ... panel opinion Magistrate "The held the Act un- application any person, situa- [of Act] applied’. constitutional 'as There is no such tion, or circumstances is held to be invalid or principle [Emphasis origi- in the Texas law.” unconstitutional, [Emphasis ..." ours]. nal], disagree. savings We clause of Arti- *10 holding present In view of our
case, question we do not reach is unconstitutional
whether 1918c face, myriad its nor reach the
on do we questions appli arise in the that will
cation of the statute. TEX.CODE CRIM. (Vernon Supp.1982-
PROC.ANN. art. 26.13
1983)imposes on the trial court to duty felony defendant certain
admonish that the felo
particulars to determine
ny mentally competent defendant is voluntary. provi These free and apply do not misdemeanors.
sions 526, State, (Tex.
Empy v. S.W.2d Therefore,
Cr.App.1978). view
reduction of the to a misdemeanor offense case, present
in the do not reach the we
question whether Article 1918c would be applied
unconstitutional as the event a
magistrate accepts in a ease. Our decision solely is based our
case conclusion
under the Constitution of the State of Tex of the Criminal District held
power of the Texas to State of determine pro
whether should § to Article
bation 42.13 3 and judicial power delegated
that this cannot be surrogate.
Reversed and remanded. ADAMS, Jr., Appellant,
Martin Luther
v. Texas, Appellee.
STATE of
No. 13-83-150-CR. Appeals
Court of
Corpus Christi. 1,
Jan. 1984.
Rehearing Feb. Denied