Case Information
*1 E GENERAL OXNEY OF TEXAS Arrcvrrlv 1,. %kCXAS PRICE DANIEL ATTORNEY GENERAL
July 14, 1948 Gplnlon No. V-633 Han, Geo. H. Sheppard Comptroller of Public Accounts Re: Authority of County Austin, Texas
Officers fees to collect in juvenile cases under the stated facts.
Dear Sir:
,Your request for an opinion Is substantially as followsn
“Is a District Clerk OP any other county officer entitled to his fees under the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 2, V. C,C,P. when a defendant is indicted for a felony offense and later an affidavit filed is setting up the fact that such defen- dant is a juvenile and such case was trans- ferred to the juvenile afcket and~tri~ed and disposed of as such?
Article 2338-1, Section 13, V, C= S,,,.provides, in part, as f 0110ws :
‘The Juage may conduct the hearing in an informal manner and !nny adjourn the In the henr- hearing from time to tlrne. ing of any cc-e the gcnern!. public xzny be excl.uded, ~11.1. mse:: invol.ving chil- dren shn1.1 be henrd separwtely rjnd~,npart from the trie.1. of cases against adults, ‘If no jury is demanded, the Judge shall proceed with the heari.ng, When the proceeding is with R jury, the ver- dict shell state whether the juvenile is a ‘delinquent child’ within the meaning of this Act, and If the Judge or jury finds that the child Is delinquent, otherwise within the provisions of this Act, the court may by order duly enter- *2 HO~.~QOO. H. Sheppard, page. 2 (V-633) :
"(1) place the child on probation or under supervlslon in. his own home or
in the custody of aaelative or other
fit person, upon such terms'as the court
shall aetermlne;
"~(2)'.o&isit~the ohlld to a s.ult&ble publlo institution or agency, or to a lmstltutlon or agenoy private suitable
authorized to-care for children; or to
plaos them, in snlts+ble family homes
pa~ental,homee~ for.an IndeterniMte per-
i0a time, not extending beyond the
tlne,the cblld shall reaah the age of
twenty-one (21) years;
,"(3) make such further cllSpOsltlOn as the court mar deem to be for the best
intbrest of ,the ohild,.exoe@t as her$n
otherwlse~ppovlded. ...
Ssotion 21 of the 8aue Artlole provides that an' appeal my be taken by any paMp aggrieved to,the Court of Clvll Appeals, and the oaae nay be oarrled the Supreme Court by writ of error or upon orrt+floats ai9 ia other olvil oatms. That a, juvenile Is not orimlaal in pr0000abg of the oourt
nature 1s olesrly evldenoed In the hold1 “$ 60, 179 S.W. II he oaae of Dandy v. Uflson, 142 Tef. 2d 269, whoraIn the aourt stated:
t !
"This Aot does not undertake to eon- vlot and punish a ohild for the aommLselon of a orlm . . . . The only Issue to be de-
.- -
Ho+ 500a H, Showrd, page 3 (V-633) at the trial Is whether the ju-
tommIned venile Is a 'delinquent ohlldB within the meaning of~the Act.
n It has beon repeatedly held by other ioXs, in oonstrulng acts similar the one under oonslderatlon, utes are not orlainal t&at such stat- In nature, and where their 9~~9080 Is for the eduoation an4 ro- fopmatlon of the minor, and the Institution to whioh he OF ahe IS committed 1s mot penal in nature, the denial of the Plght Of a jury @Ial Is not a violation of the Constltation. e b 0
"If the objects of the bat a.~@ to be accomplished, the prooeediags thereunder must nocessapllj be civil in nattu?e, and while in some respects, the ordepa OF the judgment of the ~ooaPt;nrj have the chapac- terlstlos of a judgment In a cridnal case, the customary yules of evidence in civil oases0 developed through long expe~lenee as essential In ~~rivlng at the truth %th Personable oortalnty, must be follwed. Generally speaking, the statutes pPoscrlbfng fdes fop public officers ale stz?ictlr construed an& a right to fees may not *eat in implication. BlnfOPd v.
ltoblnson; 244 S.W. 807; McCalla Y. City-of Rockdale? 2% S.Y. 6548 an&34 Tex; JWP. 508. The aompemation of public offloe~s Is fixed by the Constitution OP stat- iites. An offtde~ may not @lain OP ~ecelve any money without a law authorizing him to do so agd clesplg fix:- lng the amount to which he Is entitled. 34 Tax. JUP. TlE. 2338-l creates in each county of this A~ticlo / State s Juvenile Coupt, a court of pecwd, with exalu.- slve japisdictlon, powem, and duties In p~oa.aedings
overning anF dollnquent child, The pe~tlnant pap% of !! l otlon 12 thereof reads:
"If drrrlng the peadenoy of a oplminal cha~ge OF indictment against any pergon In any other court than a Juvenile Court, it shall be asoeptalned that that said pepson is a female over the age of ten (10) years and under the age of seventeen (17) years at, the time of the trial the alleged of- fop *4 Hon. Geo. Ii. Sheppard, page 4 ,(V-633)
fense, It shall be the duty of such court
to transfer such case lmmedlately together
with all papers, documents and testimony
connected therexlth to the Juvenile Court said county.
Your question is predicated upon a case where the accused was Indicted for a felony and was transfer- red by the distriot court to a juvenile court when It had ascertained the aooused was at the time of trial, over ten years of age and under the maximum age stated in Section 12.
Article 2338-l repealed Articles 1083-lo~;j, V.C.C.P., and Articles 2329 and 2338, V. C, S., which were the governing articles pertaining to delinquent children. Article 1084, prior to its repeal, contained very similar provisions to those contained in Pectlon 12 for the transfer of cases from another court to the juvenile docket. This office has consistently held for many years that when a case was transferred by the dis- trict court to a juvenile docket in accordance with the provisions of Article 1084 that claims of a district clerk, sheriff, or county officer for services rendered in connection therewith could,not legally be paid by the State. The Comptroller has consistently followed the opinions of the Attorney General. Opinion Eo. 0-1468, cited by you is an example thereof;
Under the statutes heretofore cited, which were repealed by Article 2338-1, no girl under 18 years of age or boy under 17 years of, age could be convicted of any felony except perjury. Williams v. State, 225 S.W.
173. The same Is true under the provisions of Artlele 2338-1. Santillian v. State, 182 S,W.(2d) 812. In a perjury case, the dlstrlct retains court has jurisdiction and Such a case does not come within the pup-
It. view or Article 2338-l.
After a vary careful consideration of all the provisions of Article 2338-l and the statutes providing for fees to be paid by the State in felony cases to dls- and other county officers, we trict clerks, sheriffs, have concluded your question should be answered in the negative.
While a proceeding of this nature frequently .lnfllcts hardships upon officers, nevertheless the duty
of supplying such compensation rests with the Leglsla-