Case Information

*1 OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

AUSTIN

Eon. lhrt rora, Aaalln1atrator

Texex~nLl uor Control Roard

, Rxw

bar Sir:

This will aokn

ertlon 30. 9 therein been comlotea o? a ext preordlng the fll- by the Tmi8 Liquor Control that tb ap~~ioont on Kar 19, in the DLtriot Court oanrloted railm6 stop and render aid 0.00, to whlOh aotion of Dip- appeal had been filed In the Court peals 05 L'ay p9, 1939. On Frbm- ary 16, 1958 thn ocntiotlon wa(LLI afilmed by the Court of Crlalrial Appeals appellant~r aotloa ior rcheartlrcr wa@ overruled on Maroh 0 lPl% an6 a mandata ef the Court or Crlmina 38 lrppsalr raa issued on April 1, 1936. ^_. - . . . . . . . Y-Y-..

HJ*xAI)*y I. ,cd .* cl3*m,,.n . .

,4: Rcn. Dart ?ord, I’aep

The lioeneee has been olted to a pear nad rhou ouuae why tha license rhould not t e oan- for the rearon that in her epplloetion aelled ior u beer retall lloenae dated koe~bbr 12, lQS9 ln atamer to Neetioa Fo. 9 the lloeneee that ehe had not been conrioted ot npmsented a relonp althln two yemro next preoedlng the rlllnff of the l pplIaatlon, wherear in truth end in lad the lloeneoe had been oomloted a6 above set out. the c0Ul-t Of the fiat&l OOUViOtlon *16

CrlmInel Appeala, it oominq wlthln a twc year period next preoedlng the rinnr: 0r the a pll- oetlan, euoh 8 oontlotlon ae to warrent t to oancellation of the lloenee by the ~dnlnletre- tor ror the reneone stated?”

You edviee that the holder cf the retail beer lioenee involved ln thin Inquiry wee oanvlated In the DIetriot Court on by 19, 1937. Thereafter, oa.80 me duly appealed, oonsldered and afflrzxtd. isitar the efflmanoe, hurt a? Crlnlual Appeals appel- overruled lant’s notion for rehearing end issued its mandate on Aprfl 1, 1930.

&-tic lo 667-5 ) Yenal Gx3s ar %xcLe 1925, reta aut la detail the requleltee or the applloetlon rhloh shall ills4 by u pereon deeirlnp, e retail berr license. Sub- dlvlelon (1) thereof, under heedln~ ‘%anufaoturer” lllce- rlae applloable to a rota11 beer dealer, enong provides, other things, that the appl?oant rhow “that he hee not been oonrloted cf P felony within tuo-te) yeere Immedlately pre- ruing of euoh applloutloa,* A8 noted frcrn 06aing request, hereinabove qutiod, lioensee inrolved opinion herein made such appliaatlon on Deoe?sber 12, 1939, and the lloenss ue~ Ienued by the %erd oa Deoezber 27, 1939, rSloh dates were leea than two years after the mendate of the 0r C~LUIM~ dipppedlm. Tour opinion request reeolvee court Itself lata the proposltlon of whether or not the *oomlo- tIonW rererred to In the epplicatlon hnd rsfsrenoe to the

ud(gaent, and sentence In the trial oourt date of c he rlnel oonviotlon In the appellete court. &tlolt~ 8243, Code or Crlntlnal Texa8, Procedure

roes, prmldee: *3 Hon. 8ert Ford, i’age 3

‘*The erraot of an appeal 1s to auepena arroat all further promboding la tha oaae in oourt la whloh the oonvlotion uat~ had, until the jud@nont ot the appellate court la reoelved b the oourt iron whloh the l ppeel waa taken. f II aaaea where, arter notloe of appeal ha boon gltea, tba reoord any portion theroot la loat or destroyed, it say be aubr:tltutad in lwtar oourt, if aald oourt be then in reoalon; and, when aubctltuted, the trmaorlpt may greparetl and rant up aa in other oaaea. or188 the oourt from whloh the appeal wua tdcea be not then in eeaalon, the eppellato ocurt ahall postpone the canalderatlon or suoh appeal un- til the next tam. of aald court iroE whloh said appeal was taken; and the sold record shall be substituted at said tar% as in other 08868. n

Umltr auoh atatut6, the dofondant, posataal~ to have hi8 appeal passe@ upon by the aprellute the rl#ti QC)UZ%, aaaaot be ccade to autter any ot the punlahmat aa- aoesed by the trial court until auoh tlrne as the ap,,pellate 3 ?srto ?raudenbur~, 140 3W 780. oourt has aated. vf !'1880uri,

Artl.ele 4329 of the Revlned 3tatuteo provldln~ that, if ti.e charge againat an attorney allege a oonvlotloa for un indictable oiianaa, tha oourt shall, on the produotlon of record of comlotim, rewove hk, auapend his trm praotlae without further trial, does not authorize his auuptaaion pending e peel tram the aon- rlotio5. State of rel larew 98. Eel8 P Sup. Ct. 0r ?ro.), 87 su 967.

?he aourt, Ln the oaee of Feo:le vs. Trendwell, 6 Pac. 686, holdin that ~aantlotionW aa uued In a statute providing for dlabemont of an attorney Eeent a Vlnal oontiotlonn and that a diabemant aotion brought while qontlotlon was on appeal aald:

*Xt has been frequently held by thla oourt that an appeal rraa a Judgment 0r iormir dlatrlot aourt tc tba aupre60 aourt operated aa a sua~tn8lon cif the judgment of the lcmfer aourt

4 Hon. Bert irord, Pii@

for all purposes, Ihnowles v. Inches, 12 Cal.

2W; Voodbury Y. Hmmn, 13 Cal, 635; People v. frlsbla, Et3 Cal. X35,) by parity of reasoning we nust hold that tm appeal from the judgmnt of a justice’s oourt to the superior oourt haa the same oprratlon and ef- foot. There la, thererore, no judlJnent or justloe*e court which Is now capable of being oarrled Into effeot; end It ia quite within the range ot possibilities that judeent entered against the doiendant and

nav etcmdlna on the justloo’s docket may be reversed in the hlp,hwr oourt.

Tn our opinion, there Is not such a final oonvlotlon aaalnst the defendant as the law oontemplates to justify his raeoval; and we think the proceeding to that end has bean prem&urely oamenoed.”

The suprem Court of %lifornfn in the case of In Re Rlcoardl, 189 Pac. tW4, in considering the stetuto involved in the ease next hereinabove cited said:

“In the prooeedlna for dlsbement based upon the record of ocnvlotlm, the judgmnt which must be pronounced Is one or absolute and final dlsbermmt. This dlsbernent 1s net an flnoidantl or the conviction of felony or ~lrdeneanor In the sons8 that such oonvlotlcn 1~80 taoto remvos the attorney iron his offloe, or is a part of the penalty presorlb- ed by the law for the oifense oi which he warn ocntlotrd. It Is a separate and lndo en- dant thlne; (mm I’oPannay v. Horton, aupra 7 , end 1s not In th,e slightest d8greo affectod by aettlng aside or reversal o,C the judm.ent of oc~nvlotlon felony cr ~lodsramnor. so unless a aonvlotion t&t has beoom final was meant, notwlthstanding that the judq.mant 1s reversed on appeal for substsntlal reasona, as, for lmtanoe, that evidence of guilt of an9 offenme is absolutely wantlnrj, or that the deiendnnt has not been accordrd a fair trial *5 Hon. IIrt Ford, Page 5

on the nerltr In the lrmrr oouft, the jud@ mat of dlsbenent baaed solely on the re- oord 0r aonvlotlo:~ et111 relhin8,

attorney oan be restored to hlr orfloe a8 an attorney end ooua84llor only %n the 8V6nt tlm court that ha8 disbarred #at him 8448 flt to. grant hi8 applloatlon r0r restoration: emethine it aertalnly not owpelled to do rolelg beoaure of thr. reversal or setting &old4 of the judgmmt of oonvlotlon. nail1 not do, In reply to th18, to 8ay thnt thie oourt would have the poroer to reatore and au.=ht to raetbre In such a cam, iz It cannot be aaepplled to restore. Unleae the attoonsy her the absolute enforoeuble ruht to ba re- stored a.8 a oono4quenoa Of tha setting aelde reveres1 of the judgment of oonvlotIon-- In ether wordr, unlesr the restoration ip80 raato rollons the eettfq aelde or revcreal judgnmnt of oonvlotlon--he Is depen- dent on areroI~e hle favor or the discretion of this oourt, whloh my or my not be In hi8 favor cs he Is loaked upon as 4 flt or unfit person to prectloe lsw, en- tirely regardless of the netter cf the oonvlo- tion. Nor will It do to MI that the rule that where a judquent is based on a previous judgarent, end the previous Judgmnt lo ZW- verwd or set aside, the 84coDd judfflGent met be set aside, applIe8 here. If the tern 'con- vlotlon* aeane, not the final judgment oi Conf vlotlon, but simply rendltlon at a rcrdlot of guilty cr a plea of guilty, a8 la the whole oontentlon of thore whb lns18t that People v.

?reedwll, aupra, wan wrongly deolded, the ettarney I8 disbarred solely beoause Of the rendition of the verdlot plea of aullty, and those icats, vi%., euoh rend1tlon of verdict or plea, remain and constitute the bas18 of disbanxmt, whatever be the ultimate reault In the oaee. There to UB to be no anmar to the proporltlon dirbarnont would mntinus that the Judgment of tlnsl

in foree, notwlth- 8rttin& arid4 or reVerBa of th4 8tandim judment propounded on the oonviotlon of felony or mledenean0r. It la unreasonable assume that the Legislature Intended to provide for

4: Hon. Beti ??omY, 1’664 6

obtelnIaS thlo l beolute and final dlabar- meat of en attorney tbur pena4wntl~ de- prlring him of 4 vaiueble property right, solely upon 4 oonrlotion ie not final, that end rhloh dua OOure4 Of revi4w 18 ruber- quetily deolerwl Invalid, In tha abosooe of 48 ruetter 0r ror reetoration 80me provi8ion eonrlotlon belnu sot a8ide. oourse upon The 8tatute Mces Wm reoord of oonviatlan’ basis of tllabernent end oonclusl~4 evl-. donor thereon. The84 worde in this OOnneO- tion Imply eomthln% other then the mre

ve~4Iot of a jury, which may be raeated

eithar by the trial ocurt or en appeal, a4 entirely without support Ln the evldenoe.

Under our settled praotloe ot many years, they arc oonsldered a8 referring to the Jude- moot pronounocd by the trial oourt Upton a mnvlotlon, end llkewlee, under ou- doclelone, tho etetute 14 eboepted a8 oontcPepleting a judment that he4 beoone flnr~l....~

The 5upens Court of Florida, In tha cnee or In 2.4 Advisory CpLnion to Governor, So. 013, eaid:

":%ile an offioer my be 8u8pndOd rroE orrice 'rOr the cormlesion of any felony' the offlae Is not 'deemed v40antq under teotlon 290 of ta:a General Statute@, esoept upon 'eon- tlctlon f, and a convlotlon la not oparatlve ii3 dr40tir4.~ ~h114 n 8~p0r84d4a8

Althou@ mob authority oen Tound the con- trary we bclleve the euthoritlee herein elted hepresent the great welEht OS authority In the Onltad States. In view OS 8uah holdinqs,.ws are o? the opinion that “eon- rioted of a telonyn a8 used In the etatute here uhdor oon- slderetlon mean8 a fin41 oonrietlon. Harinq 40 oonoluded, It neoaeaerlly rolluws thet 1lorn8ee Ihvolvsd herein was oouvlatad a4 of the date of the lasurnce of the mandate by the Crux-t o? Crlmlnel a::peel8.

m9 next turn our attention to the question 0r rlcht of the &mrtI-to oanoel llosnse lio4n844. Artiolo 6670&9 of the Penal Code provides *7 Hon. Bert Ford, Pap3 7

the Board ahall hare power and authority to canoe1 the lloenso o? auy ,person authorized ml1 beer (aftor notloo and hearing) for the various roa6oIw therein aot out. One or the rounds for OanosllatIon, as set forth (g 7 thereof, I8 the caklnu of any falsr In rubdIrIsIon ‘&I oonolude in hi8 applioation. or untrue rtateaent tha Jlosneaa war ooavloted within two year8 next preced- Ing,the makIng Of ruoh applfoatfon, 43iVilM ri8* tC th@ rluht or rorreltum of her lloense.