Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas JIM MATTOX hgust 20, 1986 Attorney General Telecopier 51214750286
Telex 910/874-1367 Supreme Court Building P. 0. Box 12548 Austin. TX. 78711. 2548 [51214752501] Honorable Bob Bush Committee on Judiciary P. 0. Box 2910 Texas House of Repreisentatives authorize a particular municipality Chairman Opinion No. m-535 Re: Whether the legislature may to impose additional court costs on
Austin, Texas 78769 convictions 714 Jackson, Suite 700 Dear Representative :Bush: Dallas. TX. 75202.4508 2141742-8944
As chairman o:f the House of Representatives' Committee on Judiciary you ask: 4824 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 May thpe legislature, without violating the 915/5353464 federal constitution, authorize a state 01:
particular city to impose an additional court cost pl Texas. Suite 700 on a conviction in municipal court? tston, TX. 77002.3111 .&?235666 We assume that you refer to legislation which would apply to one
particular municipality. You do not indicate which provisions of the state or federal constitution concern you. 606 Broadway, Suite 312 Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479 8061747-5238 Your question implicates one provision of the Texas Constiiution
in particular. Art:lcle III, section 56, of the Texas Constitution states that "[tlhe Legislature shall not , except as otherwise provided 4309 N. Tenth, Suite B in this Constitution. pas* any local or special law" on certain McAllen, TX. 78501-1685 512,682.4547 enumerated subjects. These subjects include "[rlegulating the affairs
of . . . cities. . . .II Accordingly, we must determine whether the proposed act is a "local or special law" and whether it falls within a 200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 constitutional exception from section 56. San Antonio, TX. 78205-2797 512/2254191
The proposed legislation relates not just to the affairs of a particular city bllt to the city's municipal courts. The Texas An Equal Opportunity/ Constitution contains an exception to section 56 for the creation of Affirmative Action Employer certain courts and for the prescription of their jurisdiction and
organization. See Tex. Const. art. V. 951, 7, 22; Tom Green County v. Proffitt, 195 Sx2d 845 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1946, no writ). The court in Tom Green C:ounty upheld an act which dealt with salaries for official court repxters but which exempted the courts in counties falling within a cf:rtain population bracket. The court held that the act was not controlled by article III, section 56, because the act fell within article V, section 1, as a law affecting the organization of the courts. 195 S.W.2d 3’C 847.
Nevertheless, we believe that the instant case extends beyond the creation, jurisdiction, ar.d organization of the courts. You ask whether the legislature may grant a certain power to a particular city -- the power to impose additional court costs on municipal court convictions. The court in In re Johnson, 554 S.W.Zd 775 (Tex. Civ. APP. - Corpus Christ1 197;'). per curiam, case 1 writ ref'd n.r.e.; case 2 writ dism'd per cu::Fam, 569 S.W.2d 882 (Tex. 1978). applied article III, section 56, to a statute which authorized court reporters to set their own fees, subject to the approval of the court. Although this statute applied to an aspect of the functioning of the courts, the court struck down the provision under article III, section 56:
Since the artlYLe is subject to unequal applica- tion to litigants due to the fact that the fee charged is sub:/ect to each individual court reporter's fee scale and the individual detemina- tion by each trial judge of what is a reasonable amount, the article is in violation of Art. III, 956 of the Texas Constitution.
554 S.W.2d at 785. Accordjngly, we do not believe that the constitu- tional judiciary exceptions would save the proposed legislation. the proposed legislation would apply to only one city. Moreover,
Article III, section 56, does not prohibit all classifications which treat cities differently. For example, Texas courts have upheld a number of population bracket laws. See, e.g., Jones v. Alexander, 59 S.W.2d 1080 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1933). The vital test is whether the classification is reasonably related to the differences in circumstances that necessimrte the classification. Applying article III, section 56, the court in Morris V. City of San Antonio, 572 S.W.2d 831, 833-34 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1978, no writ) stated:
Not only must a classification be broad enough to include a substantial class based on character- istics 1egitimatel:y distinguishing that class from others, but the legislation must be intended to apply uniformly to all municipalities that may in the future come within the classification desig- nated. Miller v, El Paso County, 136 Tex. 370, 150 S.W.2d 1000 71941). In a case decided ten years earlier than Miller the Supreme Court held a statute invalid as a local or special law and said, '. . . the act is so constructed that it is absolutely imposc,ible for any other city in the state to ever be included within the terms or *3 ,
under the provisjons of the act.' City of Fort Worth v. Bobbitt, 1121 Tex. 14, 36 S.W.Zd 470, 471 (1931).
Your question involves a law which would, by its terms, apply to only one city.
Consequently, we conclude that article III, section 56, prohibits the Texas Legislature from enacting legislation which grants a particular city the authorj.t,y to impose additional "court costs" on convictions in municipal courts. We make no comment on whether such a cost is correctly character:.zed as a court cost rather than as a fine. We note that this type of legislation may also implicate equal protection issues under the 'Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Further, the 'Texas Code of Criminal Procedure contains various provisions which go%!rn generally the fixing and collection of costs and fines in justice and corporation courts. See Tex. Code - Grim. Proc. arts. 45.01 - 4!i..54.
SUMMARY Article III, section 56, of the Texas Constitu- tion prohibits tht? Texas Legislature from enacting legislation grar.ting .a particular city the authority to impose additional ltcourt costs" on convictions in mu:~icipal courts.
JG&
Attorney General of Texas JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Jennifer Riggs
Assistant Attorney General