Case Information

*1 _

-. OF&E OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TRXAR

AUSTIN I-“--:- “~” ,, ~__._-^-__ gouroCyllm --

Hoaorablo Stephen P. Iiorbert

county rttommy D4uitt Couaty

CUWO , T4xa4 ion of thie Depart-

ment .on th4 abo r4oslr4d. t aa r0u0w81 t. S67-B Pd., &x144 l

S4r., r4pclals prossoutton et y worthlerrsl oh40ls, as of Art. 1546 P.C., whrr4 raid

aorlbd limitation. rd8, 1* hoa had brought to thlr oka whioh are 4peoifioally oovrr4d . 1846 P.C., end part144 holdin@ ii14 somplalrrt8. “1 iin6 no authority to rupport the eonten- tion blaoa4, that beoaurr thr bad oheok law (Art.

667-B, P.C.) r4p4aia 340. 4 of Art. 1546 P.C., as o? S4pt. Z!O, 1939, no ooqlaints oould be f ilbd and no prorooutions had daos oaid date ot 34pt.

Eonorable Staphon P. Sorbert, Paga %

Bo, 1939. In other words, it would appaar to ma that if one oanaot b4 proa4outrd at thl8 a 4riniaal off4na4 tint4 for hevfng ooamltt4d to S@,ember RO, 1939 under 940. 4 or Art. 1546 P.C., would 04411 that the later hot @hook law, Art. 567-B P.C., would be

r4troaotlv4.w

In an opinioa madared by th4 Court of Crialnal App4ala in oaa4 of Padlook vs. tho State of Texas, do- livers4 Irebruary 14, 1940, (not yet reported) your queition was aaav4r4d in thr noptivo.

W4 quote iron thr above nentfoned opiafon as fol- lows

“BJ Eo-404 Bill lo. 190 of th4 46th k&a- laturo, Chapt4r lT, Volum4 1, pag4 %46, tin4ral Laws, a naw aot was para4d oov4riag tho l ubjaut of swindling by bad ahooka. 7 of said S40tlon aot in apeoifio language, repsala Seation 4 of Artiolr 1-6 of the Peaal Code. That ia th4 art1014 under whloh th4 prea4at proaeeutloa is had. The qaeatlon haa baea'rska4d as to whether or not the rapes1 of that aeetioa fha sew act aubsequant to tho ooamlaafon of the offense wou1.b bar the pmaooutlon.

'The ofr~nu ondrr aonalderation is alleged 1939, and was triad to hav4 ooourred in February, at the July term of oourt in 1939. The 46th Logtslatura adjournad on June ?A, 1939, aad said 80~04 Bill loi 190 did not bacoae ettootlvr uatll days after adjournment.

*artiola 1844 P.C. wa8 in ofiaot at time alleged OOaIEfOOiOB of the ~3?fOB08 pnd at M4tk L OS the trial. Of aoara4. if Art.

P.C., had bean rapeah&, and the iot therein W daaounoad was no longer an orfana41 this proaaou- tion would be and& but th4 46th Lsgislaturm Bill Ilo. 190fA whfl4 r4poaliag Art. 1546, ;y4 . ., also ra-4na4te a l tatuta whioh m464 of- fenses the mm sots whioh bad thmrtoforo been donouao4d as auoh in Art. 1546. The penalty was da0 inoraaaod. Under the olrauaatana~a rtated, Arts. 13, 14, 13 and 16 o? th4 Pea81 Coda are They are aonatrwd and gfvrn effect operatita. in Aah v. State, 134 TBX. Cr. R; RO8, 114 9. W.

Banorabla Stephen P. Bsrbert , Page 3 and also

(%d) 889, and the cases therein cited, In Sgangler ‘1. State, 133 Tex. Cr. %. 36, 11’1 S. iv. (24) 63; 3tanabury 4t al v. State, 1l.l s. if. (2d) 919. la not to be nndaratood

*It that ne are here oonstrulng or passing on the Conatitutlon- of the Act of the 46th Leglalature Ln alltr quest loa. la that The extent of our holding undar *to. 13 to 16, lnolualve, of thr Penal Cod4, said Aet does not affect preaaat proa4out loa.

“ft la thereiota our oonelualoa that proaeoublon to SepteiaIer vi11 li4 ?or offeaaso oomaltted 01, 1939. Further (than) that this, is au??lol4nt say that the prea4nt eaa4 does not raise any queatlon as to the oon- atitutionallty 0r tbs re-snaota4nt above rafer- red to aa Eouee Bill Bo. 190, Acts of the 46th La5151atur4.-

Our oplnloa Ro. O-1564 whioh la in con?llot with tha holding of thla opinion f8 hereby exprs6aly overruled.

rruatlng that tho ?ore5oin.5 ?ully answers your ln- q&y, we remain

Yours very truly i;rdell Wllllasu A8alataat OPINION COhlMl?-rEc APPROVED T%?