Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE All-ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
e&u4 c. MANN ,---
Ron. Y, R. Horn11
COuItty Att0X’n.y San Jaalnta county
cold spr5ng8, TPexM
lbar Slrt
a tha dsferldant 5f4 a nadsnt of , ulnas tha aooused 5r L uon8table. d5amirsad and filed In ths Blatriot later of Febmlwy 5, 1940.) “A aonstable Or FTeiainst #2,
the couritp court* At #Mb triul, thr, fkiUZ't WStdJd *2 Ron~, U. R. Horrell, Page 2
a plea to the jurisdiction, end txanaferrsd the ease to the justioe's court in Precinct #2, vhere it 5s nov set for trial." (Ststeasent of facts accoIapany~ your letter of Fdmm.ay 5, 1940.)
",xnsver5ng your letter of Febrwry 23rd, this 5s to advise you that tbs County Caurt af Ssn Jednto County doe8 have jurlsdict5on of m%d.nal uases, having raa5md undisturbed by leg58lative enactments plsoing suah jtlr5sd5ot5on in other oourts.
"Uhen the osse VW oalled for trial in the County co-t, th0 mm apnOun~0d maax, anb COUMS~ r0p the Defendant presented the Court 75th a motion to transfer ease to the JUStice PrecWt in vh5sh the defendant resided. I cited the j-0 to the statutes g5v5ng the jWiSdiCtiOXh Of the~cOUUty Uld JUSth8'8 COWtS. 'FhS court took the pQs5t5on that alnoe the lusx5mm penalty to be 5aposed in the 5nstent a-6 vas $100.00, the ease should be sent to the Juatiee's oourt. I have ~s5noo shovn the Judge authorlt5es entablishlag the aosumment jurlsd5otLixx of the tvo aourts 5n swh cases. He 5s uill- emrbyhear5ng the aase. The lngto oomathls cpostioll Iwv 5s aa to the propr5aty return5ng the oourt vhere it is 2x01 peoding. ~8~ from the Suetice* There has been no otbar aatlon taken so fsr as both the tvo aourts and elfv58Ilyourlwllngonthe proper proaedure.~ T Yocw letter of Februsry 26, 1940.)
Article 923d of Vernon~s P-1 Code resds 88 follawsr *The CoBn58850ner or tiny of h&a deputies shsll have the right to sesroh tba Sama bq or sny othar reoeptacle of any kind vhenewr suoh ColPrLss5on.er or his deputy has reasonto suspeattbatsuohgams bsg, or otberreoept.acle oranybuggy,vaggon,automob5& or other whiale aey aontain &are unlsufully Wled taken, and any person who refuses to petit the seing of the 8aw,orvho refusasto stopsuoh veh5ole vben requested to do so by the Coma5ss5c~nsr or h5.8 deputy, shall be f5nednotless tbantezlnormore thanonehtmdreddol&rs.“
In this oonneotion it ~511 be noted that the afflse Game, Firh & Oyster ConWesioner has beep ebolished and the pavers a& duties of such Coapniss5ornrr have been transfemd to the &me, Fish 8 Oyster CtiSs5On.
lion. w. R. Horrell, Page 3
Ue quote from Teua Juriaprudenoe, Vol. l2, pp. 402-404, 88 follovs:
“In aisdemeanor cases the County Courts have or1gine.l jurisdiction 'vhen the f5ne to be imposed ahsll exceed $200,' except vhere jurisdlot5on hss been aonferred upon District Courts Cripllaal Diet&at The jwt50esi aowts have or5g5~.l jurisdiotion Courts. Vh~e th8 puni#hROnt BISybe byfiiar110t iII8XOO88 Of tV0 hundred dollsrs, except vhere the offense 5nvolves offl- c5s.l miaoonduat~ snd the corporation aourt has aanuumeat jurUd5ctlon with the justioe of thb peace 5n asses the odmlnal lava of the etetevh5uhsre arlslqunder oolrmitted v5th5n the aorporate Us&t8 vhere the mu5mm f5ne may not exoeed tvo hundred dollsm.
"The jurlsdiot5on of justlass' aourts oyer asses in vh5ch the fine asy not exceed tvo hundred dollars la not exclusive; County Courts have or5g5nsl conmrrent jurlsdlction vlth wtlcts’ courts of aisdemesnors aognlrable in the is tter 0ol.wt*, exa(lpt vheze it has beon othemrlse'provldad,--notably 5n asses of dsdemeuaors involving o?ficial Pisoanduat. In suah oaseu aonourrant jurisdiotlon is vested in the County Court end the just5oe~s aourt, and alao in the oorporatlon oourt, if wipe hss been aomdtted vitbln the oorpomte l5Ats."
RegsrdZng offenses inv?lving offioial nisoonduat, ve quote fmm Texss Jurlsprudenoe, Vol. 12, pp. 401402, as follovsr
"The Conetltution end the ccode expressly give to the Matr5.iot Court jurisd5ation *of all m5sdemeanars involv- lng OfSiCiJ mlscondtwt'; and, a.nae the Dlstr5ot murts ere g5w.m orig5m.l jurisdiotion in sll aHsUm oases of the grade of felo they alsa have jur5sd5ct5on offenses 5n~olviag of Y fo541 aisoonduet vh5oh are the grede of felony. The prov585oa of the aonstLtutionvh5oh gives jur5ad5ot5enofm5sdemeeuors t.otheCoImiyCourts has been held to relate to rPiademsauom other t&m thoee vh5cb invalve 0rfi0id mlsetmduct, bscause jurl8- diation of the latter class offense8 ha41 been expressly eonierred upon the Distvlct Court; ad stat&so vhZ& alothe oourts 5nferlor to District Oourts and cF5m5nsl n5strict CQalrts vlth jur5adiotlon QWC m5edmemo~s expressly exolude fxom the5r operat5au m5sdemanors 5nvolv5ng off5clel ls58aendu~t. Th5a jur1sdiot5oa hss
729 Ron. W. R. Borrell, Pege 4
been oonunitted by statute to Cr5aWsl Mstriot Courts ill some 5netsnoes.
"~0fflois.l niseondwt,* as used in the oonstltution end oode,5mludea the fsilure ofsnoff5aertopsrfoms eny and all sate requiredbylmrtobe performed by h5m3 snd the Distrlat Court hss exaluslve jurisd5ation to try 811 offiaial for fa5lure to perform anf duty re- qulred of hU by lav, vheth6r or not h5r aat or om5sslon 5e shown Lo hsve been vilful or oorrupt in its nature. Rut 5.~.omier thst a D5striat Court msy have jurisd5ctlon totrysm5sQemsuw ahsrged by Indiotmtnt, the sllego- tions of the 5nd5ctmentmstshov that the defendant la ohar@d vlth aff5olal BLsaanduot of 8~ kind3 the mere fsat thst tbs evtdeme erg shmr that be m5saoadueed hbiself in offiae 58 not suffla5ent.~ ItoouUnotbe aa5dtbstsoonstsblevhois ahsvw vith enoffense under nrtlale 923d of the PenalCode 5s ahsrged vlthmoffenee 5.molv5ngoff5uialm5soonduat. Therefore,the D58tr5at COUFt vokid not have jUFbdiet5On of the 8bO~ntiion& case, v&Fe the aonstablt is aherged ~5th an offense under hrtlole $X233 of the Penal Code.
Article 6tr of the Co&s ofCr5m5ntd Procedure resds as follovsr
When tvo more oourts hsve eorumrrent jur58- diatlon of any cr5m?.nsl offenso, the aourt in vh5ah ~fmdiotaont~ao~l~sbsrlf~tbef5ledshell rata& jurisd5ation of sash offanse to the exalusion sX1 other oowta . *
The term 'jur5sd5atlon," as used in the statute 55olwles the three essent5als neaeaswy to the jurisd5atlon of the aourt vh5oh are thst tha court nust have authority over the person snd the subject matter, mad paver to enter the pertiaulsr judgment rendered. See the QMC) Rragg v. State, 6 S.Y. 365.
Referring to Artlo 64 of ths Co&e of Crladnsl Proae- dure, supra, VB quote from Texse Jurlspmdenoe, Vol. 12, p. 418, as follovar
“Since to g5ve a court juriciadlotion in the sense used 5~ the statute it must km* jw5sd5otlon over the *5 Bon. U. R. iiorrall, Page 5
person of the defeudsnt, although ix0 courts mag have ooncurrent jurledlctlon of tha subject matter of the controversy, the rule that the 00urt in wh5oh a.n 5udlctmentorcompla5ntha8 f5rstbeenr5led shall have jur5zUkLatloato the exolus50nof the other oourt does not apply if the o0urt in vhiah tha pmse0ut5on vaa first 5ustltuted doos not have legal jur5sd5etlon of the person of the defendsnt. Par ewle, though ths County Court and the Distriat Court, or the Comty Court and a corporation court, both have jurlsdlot5on of the subject matter, the arm in vh5oh an iadiotment or complaint 55 first isled does not have jtisd5etf00 of the case to the exaluslon 0s the other, unUs5 the defendaut hss been arrested or it has aoqulred jurio- d5ct5on over his person in some other way, or suoh jur5sdlotlon has been valved. . .." In the case of Epps v. St&e, 94 8. #. (2d) 441, the court, in coast Artiole 64, Code of Criainnl ProoMwe, uaed the follou5ng 61
"The purpose of .&I.# enaolment VII) to prevent coafuslon aud oont+entAons between d5fferent awts, each seekLngtoexem5ae jurlsd.iotion, and thepur- pose vss not to ah5eld one accused of crime ~from proaeoation vhen that uourt, fn wh5ch the oomput lpaghave~nr~8tlodged,had~t~its j~rfsd50t50n by dlwlsasl of the oaf&e. snd he thereafter and Mien brought bsr0i93 another court afao.murrentjur5sd5atlou sset.s up the olafnandpleathatthe oourtbeforew?.Uoh he is brought has PO right to tzyh5mbeoause enother court had theretofore and riz?st siter the acmm5555oa of the offense haU beSore it rmatb 5rtdlctmsut or crosq?lalat. . . .
w . . . m0 fwt that~~0~tOr~0~~~~tjuri5- diotlon msy have at some former t&se bad upon its docketsn5ndiotmnt orcolaplaiutohaz'gingthe ssme offense for vhich the aac~~~ has subsoqueutl~ been oonvloted in another court of aomxmrent jursSdiot5on vould not operot8 to prevent rorewr any effort to prosecute 5x1 the lattec crow%. The dim5aaal of the Snd5otmsntor~ompL35nt5nthe couWi2nYMA3 SIliQBY(LB *6 Hon. W. R. Horrell, Page 6
originally prewnted would apsrste as * waiver or or loss of jurisdiction ln the oourt in whleh seam had been pmsented and imm whose docket it had heen diandssed. . ..I
The county coxmt and the justlue ootwt have ooneurwnt jurlsdlction of assea involvLJ3g ofi%nqer undw Arti 92% of the Penal Code as the psnalty provided in said 8tatut.e is such aa vould give jurMllctlon to ~elher the oounty uourt or the justioe court. After thwabove amntioned a8se had heen flied in the oounty court, Judge thereof h8d no legal authority to trsnsfer the mse to the jwtioe court.
Therefwe, the justioe court haa nqver leg&lly aopui~ed juris- dictlon of this cese unless the case va8 tirst dlsalssed in the aounty oourt. and ma-filed ln the said justlae court.
In viev of the taots stetqd in your letters and the above-mentioned huthoritlea, m are respeutfblly advissd that it is the opfnion oi this department that to simpllty the procedure in the above-raentionad caba yms sitould disoirr the oaso M origlnallyirledlntha oounty oouxt andalao btho justlae cmurt, and m-file the eese in either aourt as you may determine.
Tours orry tlay h- OERERALOPTEXiAS mdell Wllllsas A.8slstsalt