Honorable Maurice S. Pipkin Executive Director State Commission on Judicial Conduct 120 Supreme Court Bldg. Austin, Texas 78711
Re: Authority of municipal judges and justices of peace to change moving traffic violation to nonmoving violation.
Dear Mr. Pipkin:
You request our opinion concerning the authority of municipal court judges and justices of the peace in traffic cases. You ask whether a judge may dismiss a moving violation charge in exchange for a plea of guilty to a nonmoving violation which is not contained in the complaint, it not a lesser included offense and bears no factual relationship to the defendant's conduct.
In order for a justice of the peace or municipal judge to act in a criminal case, there must be a written sworn complaint charging that the accused committed a particular offense against the laws of the state. Code Crim. Proc. arts.
While most rights and procedural matters may be waived by a defendant, jurisdictional matters may not be waived. Casias v. State,
A variance between the judgment of conviction and the offense charged in the pleading is fatal to the court's jurisdiction or power, and a defendant's plea of guilty is irrelevant. It is a fundamental jurisdictional principle that the state's pleadings must support the judgment. Martinez v. State,
Accordingly we believe that a justice of the peace or municipal judge is not authorized to dismiss a moving violation in return for a plea of guilty to an unrelated, nonmoving violation.
Very truly yours,
John L. Hill Attorney General of Texas
Approved:
David M. Kendall First Assistant
C. Robert Heath Chairman Opinion Committee
