Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas
January 20. 1982
WHITE
ty Generu Ms. Elizabeth 5. Jaadc Opinion No. W-428 -wing Guadalupe County Attorney
t 12549 105-A North Auocin Re: Interpretation of article ‘X. 79711 901 Scguin. Texu 67016, 143A: Questions 78155 n74t367 rel&tlug to “defcaaive Y 612n794266 Xr. John T. Xontford couru” .a alternative
CrifAfnal oiuricc Actoroey court proceedinga Lubbock Couacy Courthouse ~St,SUtWWOO
C7saol Lubbock, .Texas 79401 944
Hr. ?Iauricc S; Pipkin
Ia* AW” Suit* 160 Executive Direcco;
rx. 799ns - State C-salon on ~Judicial tbl c&duct
211 Rugao Euilding
P..O. Box 12265
Austin. Texu 78711
Dear Ha. Jandc and Heasrs. Moatford and Plp!in: oar opinion
You have tcqueated on the. queatloaa llated below relating procedurea used by muolcipel~ and jurtice court judges thin tata ia.~le~oclng thk provisione the Texee ecatute vhlch permits .pereorr ehrrgcd~ vith”a misdemeinor offense ,related oper,ation bf i wtor vehicle td -take a “defeimlvc driving couue” .~ “driving ufety ii~ “Lieu of ptoeecutfon qd further ~courua proceedioge l rlsina from the offeore. Tlic etacuca 10 quemtioa. e&on.l43A
PlUr sutt* rod rclile 670ld. V.T.C.S.. s.Tx. 7uo5 rud6 as follove: 91 * I
DISXISSAL O? CERTAIN ltISOMWtON CN4RCW UPON COXPLETINC DRIVING SAFETY CGURSL. .
sac. ‘14% (a) Nhen a parsoo ie charged vith a dideseenor offense thie Act. other then a violetion Sactioo SO or Sl. emitted while opericiag a motor vchlcle. court: in lta
(1) dfscrecion Roy defer proceedings and ellow the person 90 days to prwenc
CtwC. aubaaquanc cha .ll.g.d th. parson act. has .succcsafully completed a defensive couraa pprovad by the Texss Dapartmant of Public Safety or other driving safety course approved by cha court; shall defer proceedings ellav the (2)
parson 90 days present written evidence that, subsequent to chc alleged act, the person haa successfully completed a driving safety approved by the court. If: an oral
(A) the parson presents court request or written aotlon to take a-course: (5) ‘the peiaoa has a valid Texas drlvar’a license or permit; end record as
(Cl peraon’8 drlviog malnrsined by the Texas Dapartwnt of Public Safety doea not Indicate succeaeful colnpJition of ,a driving safety *course under this ~acibdlvision within the cvo ycers iasnadietely preceding date of the alleged offense. (b) When coinplles with cha person of Subeecrloo (a) of
provisions this and zhe presented is accepted by the court. the court shall dismiss charge.
.Uhcn a charge Is d&seed under this UCC~W. charge may not be part of cbc detson’s ‘driving record dr used for aiy purpose. but ihall report fut that l per000 h u eucceaafully completed a driving ufety course and dote completion to the Texas Oepartaent of Pal, I Lc Safety.. ~for inclusion in parmon’i The court shall it0 drivt”$: record. note tbC course vas taken under rcwct ~dmtbar pmccdurc provided ~by Subdfviaion (2) of (aj of this seccioti purpose S~ub~ccha providing information necessary determine lWbility edurse teke l subsequent subdlvislon. questions by you ralaclng co Presented interpretaclon and statute art as follows: ioplamcntation of this
P. 1456
nr. Elizabeth .Inndt C.
Iir. John T. Iioncford
Hr. Haurice S. Pipkin
Pa&e 3 (mr-428) 1. It a court (municipal court) juarlca
re;uircd Co give a go-day deferral defendrnc to Cake a dafensivc course. es provided In section 143A(a)(2), ac any time that a moc,lon cake such a course is uada by che.dafendent _ (assuming thac.tha dafendanc is aliglble)?
2. -At uhsc polnc. if ray. ~ln .a .mlsdemeanor offense proceeding could judge refuse a motion to allow defendant a drlvar’s- Course hsve hit citation dlsmlssed under article 6701d. section 143A(a)(2)?
.3. Hay a judge require a dcfandsnt cntar s plea of guilty or nolo contendere before
judge will allou the defendant to cake s defenslva under either subsection 1 oi 2? court
4. Usy s judge require pieseut s copy of Texas Deparcuent Public driver’s course Safety’s spproval the defensive before judge yill llov .the indivldusl ‘to register for s particular course? e defendant 5. ‘Hay the judge require to the court a notarized svorn statment
actestiag CO fact Chet the dafendau$ haa not coslpleced a defensive, driving vichln tvo years the purpose of hsving a
put for ., cltstlon dismlssedt 6. What steps.msy a judge take efrer
ainety-day period, vhlch the defendsnc vi8 giveo -to complete a defensive course. if
defendsnt ‘did oat then supply vith vritten facts did complete he lo
cours.e?
7. 18 .lt uaechiul for s judge co sdvfse a party vho requests tnfonrtlon on ihe scste’s . lsv so to steps necuury dcfcns(vc dr,iving co
comply vlth ectlon 143AT
R. . . Liay a judge the dafendanc to perronally sppaar in hit court sstisfy my of act? raqulrananCa set out 1” this SpecIficaLly. fear a defendant hat taken the, dafanslvc drlvar’a course. may a judge damand -./
. 1 (rs’) *4 prcscnrac1on of rile Co”rBf complctlcn certificate In pcrcon or may it be mailed to court vithln tbd required clme limit?
This office hcs In an earlier opinion determined the statute that In scctlon 143A article 6701d. V.T.C.S.. lm qucction. It does not impcrmicslbly l d conscltutlonal lnfrlngc on the dlccrctlon of c judge before whom a misdemcsnor offense haa been brought. See Attorney Central Opinion W-185 (1980). In that oplnlon. Ye stated: lc well established ltglslaturc (Ilt that which do not
my. glut judges rcaponslbilltlcs cxcrcisc of judlclal discretion. See JamsKIn v. Garrett, 69 S.U.Zd 51; (Tcx. Clv. G.
-. Tcxarkmic 1934. -wit rcf’d); Koll v. State. 157 ‘,‘$U.2d..377 (Tax;‘-Crla. App. - 1941). . A judge may be assigned sialettrlal vhlch a& duties duties.
prcccrlbcd and defined vlth such precision as tbc l xcrciee lcavc nothing..rp: bf dlccrctloa jtdgment; Jmoiglo~ V. Garrett. M. Once the defendant complies vi,@ the three cond5tidas ~sactlon l&i(a)(2)..- we btllevc the court’ has a ~ministc.rial duty-to charge. dismiss
Ulth rcgsrd to your ,flrst question.. 6 court’n dcferrdl under l tction. 143A(a)(2) proceedings 1s mandatory. and the Q&day .pcrlod should run fron date the dtfeadanr’s written or oral motion
lr~granted; .Seccioa 143A(a)(2) Lo specific on thlr point. if any. within
-Your s&and questi& addresser the tiarc llolt~. which a defendant can elect to tokc the dcfcnslvc course. stpk&~-vas~: intended legislature’ by the an .‘trial of 8isdcmcanor cltcrneti~e procecutlon trcffic tq ~e~,ksptloa :the roektlng ct l teted: ,“[aln Act relating offcares. to a. drivlnp .qofety eoutac e ‘aa‘ altcmctlvc prosecution for certala traffic offenses....” chi 610 at 1359. Aete 1979. 66th kg., It is clear from the rtctute, thst once a prrson 16 “charSed” with Chc court uy or. shall (dcpendlng~ on offence. iircuastances) conplate the courcc and now a. defend-t “def l r proceedings” thereby halt further court pioeecdlngs.. We belfeve, haueverr logicsl conctructlon the ccatute fm thrf once the dcfcndant or his thct’hc is ready trial, eounrel has announced and once. trial (before the court or before a jury) has cownced. the option under 143A to take the driving lo no lohgcr available to the defendant, and the court my properly refute srotlon by the ‘defendant By going trial. .dcfcnslvo course. take drivcr’c *5 Mm. Ellsobeth C. Jsndt
Mr. John 1. flontford
Hr. Maurice s. Plpkin
Page 5 (tlu-4.28)
defendant forego the defensive coutee se en hqe chosen eltcrnetive means to dlepoee of the charge brought against him. it would be Improper for e
In answer to your third question. to e plee of guilty or nolo to enter judge contendere before le elloved the dcfeneivc driver’s ooursc. In cnectlng section 143A, lagielarurc clearly the completion of a defensive as en established to court prosecution for minor alternative offenses. The cxpllclt language the statute la that the court “shell dofcr It vould .bc a violation of e proceedings” (section 143A(s)(Z)). defendent’s constitutlonel rights. es well as prlvllcgcs grented by legislature under this etetute. a judge to require e defcndent to enter l uy plea In exchange for exercising thc’optlon prescribed In l tetutc cleerly mskcs the defendant’s section 143A(c)(Z).
cxcrclee of ‘the section 143A(c)(Z) option en l ltcrn~tlvc to furthcr court proceedings end clininetes the necessity of entering 3 plea es Further, a prccocditlon. the court can never force l ny plce co be entered by a defendant; if no plea Is entered, the court must enter a not. gullty plee. Tcx. Code Crln. Proc. art. 27.16(a).
In anever to your fourth question, UC hevc earlier eoncluded.thet the texes Department of Public Safety, hcrclneftcr referred to ee.the trelnlng l chwle, DPS. hee authority tc? llccnec all driver including those that course +thorixcd by section 143A. kc Attorney Ccncrel .Oplnion W-16 (1979). Yhle question asks lue l burden of proving vhcthcr~ defendant exercising hie option. bcforeheud thet the dcfcneivc be taken under drlver’s- courie ecctlon 143A hes bccn~ “epproved” by thc~ DPS.
The atetutc trenefcrs no .euch burden defendent. In Attorney General Opinion t¶U-18s (1980) WC Interpreted follwing 1s l cceptcd words in ecc~lon 143A(b): “...and the evidence preecnted by the court.” WC stated there: ‘~
You suggest’ that this provlelon refer0 common - law rules cvldcncc and meane judge that
muet edoit prcecnced by dcfcndent rhe evidence unless there 1s en objection llcmcver , it., cctlon 143A(b) uece t&cm ‘ecceptid’ rethcr ‘admitted. since ~wctloa ._ then lforcovcr. 143A(e) (2). pclle out kind evidence which dcfcndent must prcscnt. the judge need not rule on ~rclevency. He need only dstctmlnc vhethcr
cvidcnce conform the rcqulrcnentc
143A(a) (2). We believe language you Inquire judge-will cveluetc bout contempletce presented by the defendent he
has successfully completed en epproved defensive driving toursc end accept It if in fact it cornpIles vith the statutory rcquircmente. following our prior rceeonlng. WC conclude
Thus. 143~ does not place any effirmetive burden of proof on the defendant to present the court proof of completion in J of such se vrltten proof from the DPS of its approval of specific fora. taken. Defensive schools customarily provide a the course certlflutc of completion to persons uho -have succtssfully completed the course. A judge. should evaluate the evidence Of a completed course presented by defendants on a case-by-case basis. statute dote not for a judge’s prior approval of the course to be taken.
In ansvcr to your fifth question , we similarly find no language in scccion 143A which would permit a judge to speclflcelly reaulrc submission e noterlrcd svorn’statement attesting fecc chat the .defendent has not completed a driving safety couree within, prior tvo-ycer period as a precondition to dismissal chergee. (B) and (C) of section 143A(s)(Z) Subedctlona~ (A), recite three fnrms of “written cvldcncc”~vhich the defendant must present to prove compliance with The judge must evaluate on a statute. case-by-cast basis evidence presented by the d+fendant chat he has complied vlch subsections (lb) (C) of the statute. (A),
As co question six. judge mey take a number of customary acciona if falls to complete course within go-day period and falls-.to presetit such proof court. These Include setting the meter for.trlal, acceptance and filing of failure iippcer chergce. Issuing an .arreet uerrant. or other actions as If’ the defendant had never elected to take permitted by lav. dtlvcr’r course under section 143A. . . . . AR .‘to quentlon It ,would not be a ‘vloletiori judicial seven. ethics’ for e judge to advise a defendant of his option driving nafcty course. The right .to take the course has been granted by the lcglrfocurc to defendants, In aledc.mcenor traffic ceses. end it Gould. not be uurthlcsl for a jud,gc ,to advise a defendant of spcclflc stcpe ncccse~ty comply with statute. . . ‘. .
.Uith regard question eight . tic find no 1IWIgUAge in SeCtiOn 143A .uhleh uourd permit a. judge a dcfendnnt bc to requite la his court pcteonelly to present the “written physically present vldcncc” of comp)iencc vlth subecctlone (B) and (C). Under (A), currcnC etetutcs ptsctlcc. can dispoee e and citation without ever personally ppeerlng misdemeanor a ples’by mall ot’through his ettorney. court. A-defendant can enter
Ms. Elizebech C. Jandt
Mr. John T. f%-itford
tic. Maurice S. Plpkin
Page 7 (ml-426)
see. Ttxsfi Code of Criminal the Proctdurc. articles 27.14 and 27.16: Grt can set.an appemmce bond aa vcll as an appeal bond without defendant’s presence, article 27.14(bj; and the defendant can file s notice of appeal for trisl de novo without appearing ln personally court. article See also Attorney General Opir.lon 44.13 et. seq. (1978) (dlscu,sslng articles 33.03 and 33.64, Tex. Code Grim. H-1203 latter which petnice Proc.. criels in misdemeanor certain cases the absence of a defendant). a policy by legislature
These stetuteq dawnstrace permit offense cases lo the absence the disposal of minor miadcmeenor rhe defendant, vho Is permitted these 8tscutes to appear by the case by personally some or all of or by counsel end co conduct mall, without inconv nience of being forced drive hundreds of state I o be present during varlou8 6tares his miles across proceedfng.
Similarly. ve conclude 14% does not compel nor authorize a .judge co require the presence of the defendant to, “prove up” hie coipllance with three requlremeat~ listed In section 14%(a) (2). “Written evidence” la sufficient the statute when the defensive ~completloa certificate la presented by defendant by mail.
SUMMARY 1. A, judge must pet-air a defendant ~to take the defensive drlver’s~ course in every ease’vhere e motion to take the course Is properly -de end 1s ~lglble for the courae. where defendant msy exercise his right to 2. elect to trke defensive dtlver’a course at any time prior commencement of hla trial on ehergea brought. If he bee not done eo. the right to take the driving course e an alternative to court proceedings Is no longer available him.
3. A, judge mey not require to enter any plea as’s precondition to ~pernlttlng defendant to elect to take under ectlon 143A(s) (2).
course 4. A ,‘judge MY not e defendent who c~ects take the defensive
prow CO the court beforchend thee course he bee tntendu been approved by Public Safety. Deprrtmcnc
?ra. Elirrbcth C. ,Jnndr
Mr. John f. Honcfard
Hr. tl;lurlce S. l’lpkin
Page 8 (W-WI)
5. A judge has no specific. authority se6tlon l43A to require submission of a notarized svom statement by the defendant atteocfng that he has not completed onothcr defensive driver’s coume vlthln the prior tvo-year period.
6. Where a defendant fsils to complete course und fails to comply vith of #action 143A after being granted the provisions court, permission the court mny proceed vlth prosecution of the chsrges 6s If the defendant hsd never elected to or been permitted take course. 7. A judge uy advise fulfill
speclf ic Actions necessary ectioa 143A(a)(2). requlrcments i13A doea sot permit 4 judge
8. Section t’o a defendant ‘personally appear f to present “vrltten evldeuce” completion
of the defensive coume.
JOHN-U. FAINTER. JR.
First Aarl8cant Attorney Central
RICHARD i. GRAY III
Executive Aoristant Attorney Ceneml
Prepared by Richard W. Mayer
Asalotlnt Attorney Central
APPROVED:
OPINION COtMI~RR
Surnn I.. Garrison, Chairman
Rick Cllpln
Nlchord W. Heyer