*1 The Honorable Tom Hamilton Opinion No. M- 872 District Attorney Re: Distribution of fines collected
64th Judicial District in District Court Halt County Courthouse of the Texas Motor Carrier Pla inv icw, Texas
Act, Article 911b, V. C. S., 1690b, V. P. C. Dear Mr. Hamilton:
You have requested an opinion of this office as to the disposition assessed and collected under the Texas Motor Carrier Act, collectively Article 911b, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, and Articles 1690b and 1690f, Vernon’s Penal Code.
There are a variety of fines or penalties which may be assessed of the Texas Motor Carrier Act. Subsection (a) of Article 1690b and Article 1690f. Vernon’s Penal Code, provide for fines to be assessed as misdemeanor criminal penalties. Subsections (b) and (c) of 1690b set out the civil sanctions imposed of the Texas Motor Carrier Act. While your letter refers to only those fines collected as civil penalties we think that under Section 17, Subsection (c), of Article 911b, the disposition of all fines and penalties should be the same. This Section of the Motor Carrier Act provides as is here pertinent: all fines and penalties the provisions
of this Act shall be payable to the State Treasurer at Austin, and credited to the fund to be known and designated as the ‘Motor Carrier Fund’, which fund is appropriated for the pur- pose of carrying out the terms of this Act. .” Quite clearly by this language the Legislature has specifically spelled out the disposition and purpose of fines collected the Texas Motor Carrier Act. WC feel that this legislative mandate should be followed and should *2 page 2 (M-872) control here. just as was held in Attorney General’s Opinion No. M-560 (1970) over the more gcnernl provisions of Articlc 1007, Vernon’s Code of
Several opinions have been issued by this office on the subject of reten- tion of fees or commissions by local officials out of”fines or penalties col- lected for the State by such official. Attorney General Opinion No. O-48 (1939) considered the question of the responsibility of the Justice of the Peace to deduct 10 per cent of the fines collected under Article 1690b and pay that amount into the officer’s salary fund of his county. This opinion concluded that under Article 950 of the 1925 Code of Criminal Procedure 3912e, Sections 3, 4 and 5, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, a Justice of the Peace had the duty to deduct 10 per cent of fines collected under Article 1690b and pay the same into the officer’s salary fund of his county and, further, that upon his failure to accomplish this the same amount could be deducted from the salary of such officer.
Attorney General Opinion No. O-360 (1939) considered the question of what disposition should be made of fines collected by a Justice of the Peace of the Motor Carrier Act and merely concluded that all fines of the Motor Carrier Act should be deposited with the State Treasurer at Austin after deducting commissions as allowed by law. The “commissions as allowed by law” referred to in this opinion were apparently those provided in Article 950 of the 1925 Code of Criminal Pro- cedure, namely, 10 per cent and 5 per cent to be retained by the District Attorney and District Clerk, respectively, out of fines collected for the State by such officers. Later in the same year Attorney General Opinion No. O-1258 (1939) was issued considering the same question and concluded that Section 17 (c) of Article 911b directly answered the question with the result that “all fines and penalties which are collected of the of this Act must be paid to the State Treasurer at Austin and credited to the Motor Carrier Fund.”
Finally, 4ttorney General Opinion No. M-560 (1970) considered right, by virtue of Article 1007 of the 1965 Code of Criminal Procedure, a District Attorney to retain 10 per cent of civil penalties by him in suits brought under Article 7621d- 1, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. Article 950 (referred to in the two preceding opinions) was the predecessor 1007 referred to in this opinion. This latter opinion concluded 7621d-1 contained dealing with the disposition *3 ,
I page 3 (M- 872)
collected and, thcrcfore, controlled over the more general of 1007 of the Code of Proccdurc. Therefore, a District Attorney did not have the right to retain a perccntagc of moneys collected as civil penaltics on behalf of the State.
We therefore follow and affirm Attorney General Opinions Nos.O-1258 also M-560, wherein the applicable principle of statutory construction was declared that the specific prevails over a general and we overrule statute, Opinions Nos.O-48 and O-360, r-caching the conclusion that neither the Dis- trict Attorney nor the District Clerk may retain any percentage of the moneys collected as fines, forfeitures, or penalties recovered in actions brought for violation of the Texas Motor Carrier Act.
SUMMARY Article 911b, Section 17 (c), Vernon’s Civil Statutes, requires that all fines and penalties thereunder shall be paid to the State Treasurer, and contains dealing with the proper distribution or allocation of fines and penalties the pro- visions of the Texas Motor Carrier Act; this provision controls over the more general provisions
Vernon’s Code of Criminal
Neither the District Attorney nor the District Clerk may retain a percentage of any penalty or fine collected in any suit brought on behalf of the State of Texas the Texas Motor Carrier Act.
Attorney General Opinions Nos. O-1258 and M-560 are affirmed and Nos. O-48 and O-3 re overruled.
,P
Prepared by James M. Mabry
Assistant Attorney General
Honornblc Tom Hamilton, pngc 4 (M- 872)
A PPROVEI):
OPINION COM-&lITTE E
Kerns Taylor, Chairman
W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
James H. Cowden
Ben Harrison
James Quick
S. J. Aronson
MEADE F. GRIFFIN
Staff Legal Assistant
ALFRED WALKER
Executive Assistant
NOLA WHITE
First Assistant