The Attorney General of Texas
:)ecember31, 1985
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building Honorable Bill Stcbblefield Opinion No. JM-415
P. 0. Box 12546 Williamson County A,ttorney
Austin, TX. 76711.2546 Third Floor, Courthouse Re: Legality of a sheriff hiring.
5121475-2501
Georgetown, Texas 78626 for a paid county position as an un-
Telex 910/674.1367
Telecopier 51214754266
guarded maintenance supervisor out-
side the jail, a prisoner sentenced
to the Texas Department of Correc-
714 Jackson, Suite 700 tions but not transferred there
Dallas, TX. 75202.4506
214l742-6944
Dear Mr. Stubblefi,eld:
4624 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 Your letter+rlef requesting an opinion from this office advises
El Paso. TX. 79905.2793 (in somewhat diffmeut sequence):
9151533.3464
On Au8ust 12, 1982, a prisoner who had been
,001 rexas, suite 700 placed cn probation for driving while intoxicated,
Houston, TX. 77002.3111 subsequent offense, had that probation revoked.
713/223-5666 He was sentenced to five years in the Texas
Department of Corrections. The Sheriff retained
the primner in the Williamson County Jail, where
SW Broadway, Suite 312
Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479 he became a trusty. . . .
0081747.5230
In the present case, the delay in transporting
amounted to twenty months. However, this may have
4309 N. Tenth, Suite B
McAllen, TX. 76501-1665
been mf:ivated by an understanding on the
512/662-4547 sheriff's part that the prisoner's actual time
behind bars would be very brief. . . .
200 Main Plaza, Suite 400
The Imisoner in this case is conceded by all
San Antonio, TX. 76205-2797
512/2254191
parties t:o be an unusually skilled mechanic. In
September of 1983, the sheriff asked the comnis-
sioners court to create a new position of main-
An Equal OppOrtUnityf tenance superrrisor,citing the financial benefits
Affirmative Action Employer to the county by avoiding commercial shop charges
to repair and maintain county vehicles. The court
concurred largely on the basis of their apprecia-
tion of the talents of the sheriff's proposed
employee -- the prisoner in question, who was
expected to be released $rlor to the effective
date of the position in January of 1984. When
January csme. the prisoner had not yet been
p. 1895
Donorable Bill Stubblefield - Page 2 (JM-415)
released, but i,: was essential to fill the new
position. The s,heriff had three choices: he
could leave the job open (and pay shop charges),
he could hire a less-qualified applicant, or he
could hire the prisoner (who he expected to be
paroled very shortly). . . . He had been advised
by the district attorney who had convicted the
prisoner that c: would not be unlawful to hire
him. . . . In September of 1983, a new position
of Maintenance Supervisor was created in the
sheriff's depart,nlant. In January of 1984, the
sheriff hired rho prisoner for that position.
It should be