Case Information
*1 3.16 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS DIstrl6t Attornsr
Eoaorablr r’raak B. Lloyd
79th fudfaial Dlrtrlat
A11o0, Toracr 4605. The St&to f3oard of Sodl-
“&fials sal Pxazfzinere sey rcfkre to abdt person8 to
Ita euwlnations license to -ma- aoa to forue tloe ~~~dlolno to any psraon, for any of the
,folluwln~ reason8 I
Eonorable Prank B. Llofi, Tago 2
n . . . a0 or a "(2) Conrlotlon of 6 orlme of r or whiah lnvolv4r moral turp tuaa 't" felony, . :I “Artlclit 4506. Tbo Dlrtriat Cat&a th;r
State shall have the right to rwoko, 08noe1, or oucpend tho lloonre OS ~praotltlon~r or” mdl- olne upon proof of the violation of lrr In may respsot lc regard tbsrato, or for any oaam for whloh the State Board OS Yedioal YWmlnm~ rhall be to refuse to admit pemocn it8 ema- authorited lnetlon, 05 pzovidsd ln ArUe oi tha Revllrea Civil 3tntutcs of Toxata of 1025, a8 anondcd #is tot, It oh311 bo the duty of the eeveral Dls- trlct and County Attorneys of t?315 state to file 3na posocuto 32proprlste Judlolol prooecdin~ for 3uch rwoc0tlon, c3nosllatlon, or susgenslon, in the txmt of state, on request of the Eke1-5 or i:xndnero.' t&%!ieEl
x6 bc!licwe thct the phrafie "the violation of IP::J In any ros>bct In re!:srd thereto* as used 1~ Article 45CG, 5qma, rsfers szly to such law5 83 rcllnte to the lssaanae, suspenolo3 or rcvooatlon of the lloeme to praotice 2ealo;ne, rather thsa ta tka violntion al the 13~3 of the State Gensr- 3lly.
Tour caostlon, therefore, raoolves ltselt to a oon- struation ST the ward *oonvlotion,* 3s used in pdraqraph (2) of hrtlole 4505. 30~s ft man a Jury rindin of 6uilty upon on LnClatmnt for e felony or does It m3n a Sinal aonvlatlon'l
Xherr? a ausyn@ed smtonoe haa been &ranted *celther the verdiot of cOmiOtiOn nor the jud@mut eutercd thereon stall becom Z?nal' . . ." Artiole 77 El,'Code of CrJsrLnol Pm- ccdure, 1325. "Vnder the temw of our statute relative to sua?endsd mxtozcs, ithan baen herd that in E case where one rcoelvea such santenoe the judmcnt ia not ilcal anE oannot be appealed IrozP -- Z'ones v. State, z??ol S. k. 1012. If by the h7xa nCowlctf~n* as usea in Article 4509, the Leglsla- ture intandod to zmm only a fin.31 oonvtction, oleerly a phyal- clan a~uld rst be oubjoot to location of his ~li.oerue to praotios n;edlclnc, whom kls strztonos brad bcon suspended upon cocviction oc" 5 felony.
Honorable Prank 8. Lloyd, Page 3
i felony l comiotad or Slmoads V. state, 168 Se P. 8081 In the statute tq State, rho oourtr (sinae hare amendedd) ubloh msdo bea who heid lnOOmpete5t [80] oowtrued es a wltnerr. the word woonriotod~ lib 8. V. Bee ltapin-
1064; Oolcnzan V. state, 187 s. 8. 481.
On the other hand, oourta harr given the op- posite oonstrimtibn to the 8sm wWd Vhdi us04 %n oertaia other rtotutss. opl?liox.l oi Judge Latti- ze c,aotc sron gy Mgay Court oi Crimliml Agpeelm in, Xill v. Btete, %S
. $.
*It 8ems olear . . . that by the we of lsords ‘convicted or a folonyl in reotlons 1, E, 3, tnd 5 OS the statute nnder dlsonssion (the euependsd aentcnoe lsw., Article ObSb-f, Code of Crfmlnal Pmor- dure) wes nca:lt thst ststus resultfa6 fro= a Jude- nent based on the verdiat oi a jury ilndlng the’ eo- CUo& @Iilty Ctf BOW $dOnY. The t6rCi ‘5OUViOtiO5’ in mob the 8-0 1s used ln aany of our statutes BamDO. . . . our OCEOIU~OI~ n-02 tht ab0~a mt6- mats that one ‘oonvlctcd of a relonp whose sentonoe is suz+ptnetd 1s n~.thil!l oo~prthtllslon 0r this otatute, whea It used tho eqimession *oonvloted of a felony;**
Llkswlse the +wt of Criminal ApFesls of Texas has construed the rnrd Roontlotlon” as used In Artlole 4, (3eotion 11 of tht Texas Co.wtltutlon ns meaoln~ merely a rtrdlot ‘of gutlty, rather than a flcel oonvlotion. see: ~08s Y* State, 298 s. z. 588 and Duke v. Stats, 291 3. a. 539. In the Duke ease, Judge Uorrow wed th6 following lenL~aee:
“Acoordlng to the wel&ht OS the preowlants, it seem, in its relation to the aowtr pardon,
term *oonvlotlon’ refers to B verdict of ‘eulltp* by a jury 1s not restrloted to R final JudQcsnt on suoh vudiot
It is apprent fnn tht fort&ng that tht Texas fired lnttrpretetion the word oourts hnvt not follomd nconvlotlon* as used in Vnrlous The question haa statutes. not been dlreotlp nlaed uodsr the statute under oonaideretion.
iievooatlons of physlolens’ lloensss upon’ ottier grounda, under tbla ntntute (prior to lte 1039 manr?mnt) hnre been twioe SW- tairad in the cases of Cumln@m v. State er ml Shook, 79 *4 Xonor-ablo Prank 3. tloyd, Fags 4
3. IE. (&I) 180 [writ of em-or retuo~dd 8 oer Y. St0te, 109 9. a:. kd) 1150 (nit orror dlomlooo6 P.
iFa cnolose herewith 009~ ot oar Opinioa Ho. O-1894, fkn. !3ert Ford, Wherein tb0 ward "oonrleted~ ad&owed ao wed ln the Texas Liquor Cont.tml hot 10 oolldtrued. The 0 lnion review deoioiona Wm other 0tator vhloh lndloatr t & t walght Oi authority i0 in istOr OS the via thet ~oonrlotlOn" 0601111 8 a 60~18tlOr: UrilOS0 S 000tr0~ io- tent is wnltlrtsd tho statute In whloh word lo use&
Xe oosolude, therefore, tha,t the phmos *oonvio- tion of a orlwe OS the grada OS ftlonp,” as uacd in l eotlon (a) of Artiole 4505, Rrriaed Girl1 Stntttteo ot Texas, hoald be oonstrusd to men u oonoiotlon. O0naagnently, a ;?h si- olsn who had received a suepsndad santenat upon b oonrlot oa I vmld not bc aubjaot hare No llocmse ot II ttlony, to prao- ;,muml alone, alnoe h$s oma- tics zedloine revoked upon that Ee wlah to golnt out that nolthtr vlotlon would cot be tloal. sg~es1.s car ths suprsme court ot Texas
the courte ot cioll have pnessd upon the questloq x%arofora our oplnlon hsreon oannot be given the aam weight os thoyb It WeFt baaed u?on tbe prior dealsiam ot our a$?ollata osurts beiox ahom t!ils cpotlon mxng be prtssnteu.
YDur3 very traly ‘By- q%Lc&
‘iralter Ii. Gooh xaaistant