Case Information
*1 - THEA~TORNEYGENERAI.
September 21, Opinion lo. V-686 Bon. J. Q. Knight County Attorney Re: Authority of the Coun-
Bee County tg Judge or CommlsslOn- Beeville, Texas em' Court to remit a
fine paid upon being adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor.
Dear Sir:
Your request for our opinion on the above sub- ject matter is, in part, as follows:
"On August 17, 1948, a defendant was ,adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor offense by the County Court of Bee County, and was naseesed a fine of $100.00 and costs. Ro ii&Ice of appeal was given and no motion for new trial was made. The fine and costs were paid by the defendant on August 17, 1948. Today he seeks the remlsslon of the fine. a .
"The opinfon of your office relative to the authority of the County Judge or the Commlssloners Court t$ remit the fine in question Is requested.
In the.case of Hiram Luckey v. The State, 14 Tex. 400, it was held that the District Court did not have the power to remit any part of the fine or costs in a criminal case. %ie quote the following:
*It was very properly so ordered by the court in this case, and there is no error In the judgment of which the appel- * lant can complain. But the court had no authority to remit any part of the fine and costs, and of this the State very ,- justly complains. After convictipn ana
assessment of the fine by the jurr the court has no power to remit the punish- *2 Hon. J. G. Knight, page 2 (V-686)
ment Imposed, That is the exercise of the pardoning power which appertains ex- clusively to the Rxeoutlve. leither has the court the power to remit costs. Those are matters of private right which neither the court nor any one else on behalf of the State can release without the consent of those to whom they are due. The statute, though its meaning Is not very clearly ex- press&, was evidently internlea to empower the court to fix such a limit to the term of imprisonment as the court, in its dls- cretion, might deem proper upon satisfac- tory.proof of the inability of the party to pay the fine and costs, but not to empower the court to remit any portion of either the fine or costs. (Rart. Dig. art. 401, Dixon v. The State, 2 Tex. R., 481.) The court therefore erred in Its judgment re- mittlqg a portion of the fine and costs, . a ,.
It was further held in ex parte Thomas, 108 Tex. Crlm.Rep. 653, 2 S.W.(2d) 270, that the Commissioners' Court did not have the power to remit fines. We quote the following: * 0 e the legal question involved
is whether the order remitting the fine was within the jurlsdlctlon of,the com- missloners" court.
"In article 4, Sec. 11 of the Con- stitution of Texas, the pardoning power Is vested in the Governor in the follow- ing terms:
"'In all criminal cases, except trea- son and Impeachment, he shall have power after conviction, to grant reprieves, com- mutations of pynishment and pardons, ana under such rules as the Legislature may prescribe, he shall have power to remit fines and forfeitures.'
. 'Based on'the constitutio 1 provision mentioned, the Legislature clec are& In art- 9"
icle 952,, Cocle Cr. PPOC. 1925, that the Gov- ernor may remit fines. So far as we are *3 J. G. Knight, page 3 (w-686) Hon.
.-
aware, the power to relieve one convicted of a penal offense of a,fine assessed against him isvested alone In the,Gover- nor. This view is emphasized by the pre- cedents in this state. See,Snot¶grass v; State, 67 Tex. Cr. R..615, 150 S.W. 162, 41 L.R.A. (N-S.) 1144;'Rx Tex. Cr. R. 587, 162 S.W. gf"$ Rice, 72
In view of the foregoing it is our opinion neither the Counts Judge nor the Commissioners' that paid Court has the power or-authority to remit a fine case. by a defenclant after conviction In a misdemeanor
SUMMaRY Neither the County Judge nor the Com- missioners' Court has.the power to remit a fine paid by a defendant after conviction In a misdemeanor case. Blram Luckey v. The State, 14 Tex. 400, Ex parte Thomas, 2 S.W.
(26) 270. Yours very truly, .- ATTORNEYGERERAL OF TEXAS JR:mw
John Reeves Assistant APPROVED: RNEYGENERAL