January 31, 1989
Honorable Travis S. Ware Opinion No. ~~-1012
Criminal District Attorney
P. 0. Box 10536 Re: Whether the Lubbock County
Lubbock, Texas 79408 Bail Bond Board may prohibit
the employment by bail bond
companies of persons convicted
of felonies and crimes of moral
turpitude (RQ-1609)
Dear Mr. Ware:
You ask whether the Lubbock County Bail Bond Board may
prohibit the employment by bail bond companies of persons
who have been convicted of felonies and crimes of moral
turpitude. YOU state that the Lubbock County Bail Bond
Board has proposed "to restrict the local bonding companies
from employing those individuals who are felons or have been
convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude."
Section 3 of article 2372p-3, V.T.C.S., provides that
no person is eligible for a license as a bail bondsman, "who
after the effective date of this Act, commits an offense for
which he is finally convicted, such offense being a felony
or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude."1
Section 9(b) of article 2372p-3 provides that a county
bail bond board may, after notice and hearing, suspend a
license for any one of twelve reasons enumerated in the
statute. One of the bases for suspension is when the holder
of a license is found to have a wfinal conviction . . . of a
misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony committed
after the effective date of this Act.88
1. In Attorney General Opinion JW-75 (1983) it was
stated that the provisions relating to offenses "committed
after the effective date of this Act" in article 2372p-3
refers to August 27, 1973, the date of the original act,
instead of August 31, 1981, the date of the amendatory act.
p. 5222
Honorable Travis S. Ware - Page 2 (JM-1012)
Section 15 of article 2372p-3 sets forth a number of
violations by a licensed bondsman that may result in
conviction of Class B and Class C misdemeanors. The
employment of a person convicted of a felony or crime of
moral turpitude by a bondsman is not listed as one of the
violations that may result in a criminal conviction.
You advise that your question has arisen as the result
of a bail bond company's hiring of an employee who has been
convicted of a felony. YOU state that the employee is
without authority to execute bonds.2
The employment of a convicted felon (not authorized to
execute bonds) by a holder of a bail bond license is not a
statutory basis for denying or suspending a license by a
county bail bond board.
In %exar Countv Bail Bond %d. v. Deck rd 604 S.W.2d
214 (Tex. Civ. ADD. - San Antonio 1980. no Ati . the court
held-that the Be& County Bail Bond Board wmay.not impose
additional burdens, conditions or restrictions in excess of
or inconsistent with statutory provisions.w In Deckard the
court stated:
The rule-making power delegated to the
board tier the statute is mrelv the Dower
settina of bail bonds in the cou&y . There
is no language granting power to make rules
relating to the qualifications which must be
met by applicants for licenses. A reasonable
interpretation of the statutory language
supports the conclusion that no such power
may be implied.
. . . .
least in the absence of statutorv lancuaae
j&icatina a leaislative intent that the
2. In Attorney General Opinion WW-507 (1982) it was
stated that a licensed corporate surety may have authorized
agents to sign bonds in its behalf but an individual surety
may not do so under article 17.08 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
p. 5223
Honorable Travis S. Ware - Page 3 (JM-1012)
board should have the Dower to add to the
.
The grounds for revocation or suspension
of a license are listed in section 9(b) of
the statute.
. . . .
The statute, in section 9(b), lists eight
grounds for the suspension of the license of
a bondsman. The automatic suspension rule
adopted by the board attempts to add a ninth
ground. This it cannot do. (Emphasis
added.)
Ig, at 217.
you suggest that Austin v. Harris C untv Bail Bond Bd,
756 S.W.2d 65 fTex. ADD. - Houston Us: Dist.1 1988, wrik
denied) may control thi-issue. In that case the appellant
urged that the county bail bond board denied his application
for a license on a basis set forth for suspending a license
under section 9 of article 2372~'3 rather than for the lack
of a statutory qualification for approving his application.
The court rejected appellant's contention noting that one of
the requirements for obtaining a license under section 3(c)
is 'Ia declaration that the applicant will comply with the
Act and the rules prescribed by the Board." The court
reasoned that applicant's past behavior in not complying
with the act may be considered in determining whether he
will comply in the future. The court held that the
authority of the board to review an applicant's record as a
licensed bondsman does not impose a condition or burden
inconsistent with the act so as to be violative of the rule
in Deckard.
Under the holding in Deckard, the rule-making power of
the board is limited to the making and setting of bail bonds
in the county and the board is not authorized to impose
qualifications upon the operation of a bondsman that are not
enumerated by the statute.
p. 5224
Honorable Travis S. Ware - Page 4 (JM-1012)
SUMMARY
The Lubbock County Bail Bond Board may
not prohibit the employment by a licensed
bail bondsman of persons (not authorized to
execute bonds) who have been convicted of
felonies and crimes of moral turpitude.
Attorney General of Texas
NARY KELLER
First Assistant Attorney General
Lou MCcREARY
Executive Assistant Attorney General
JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAXIXY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Tom G. Davis
Assistant Attorney General
p. 5225