Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

The Honorable Henry Wade Opinion No. H-794 Criminal District Attorney Dallas County Government Center Re: Whether a court may Dallas, Texas 75202 grant an occupational license toga person con- The Honorable Edna Cisneros victed of driving while County & District Attorney intoxicated who is confined County of Willacy or imprisoned as a result 2nd Floor, Courthouse of the conviction. kaymondville, Texas 78580 Dear Mr. Wade and Ms. Cisneros: You have requested our opinion regarding a portion of section 25a of article 668733, V.T.C.S., recently amended by the 64th Legislature. The statute now provides in pertinent part: Whenever any person is convicted of any offense for which this Act makes auto- matic the suspension of the operator's, commercial operator's, or chauffeur's license of such person, the court in which such conviction is had shall require the surrender to it of all operators', com- mercial operators', and chauffeurs' licenses then held by the person so convicted and the clerk of said court shall thereupon forward the same together with a record of p. 3353 The Honorable Henry Wade The Honorable Edna Cisneros - page 2(H-794) you inquire about the circumstances under which a court may enter an order permitting the convicted individual to obtain an occupational license, i.e., to retain his current driver's license with added restrictions limiting it to occupational use. It might be argued that, by limiting those circumstances to cases in which "the person convicted is not confined or imprisoned," the statute means merely that the court may not grant an occupational license for use while the defendant is in confinement. Under such a view?he court could permit any convicted defendant to obtain an occupational license, so long as its use was restricted to the period in which he was not confined. But such an interpretation would render the provision virtually meaningless, since a person could not normally make use of a driver's license during the period in which he was confined. It is well established that a statute should not be interpreted in such a manner as to attribute to the Legislature a useless act. State ex rel. Childress v. School Trustees of Shelby County, 23r m2d 777, 781(Tex.Sup. 1951); D‘ii;;on v : PoaFd Xz.z:J12d 89, 96 (Tex.Civ.App. -- Houston 1958,writ re We therefore believe that the statute must be read in such a manner as to preclude the court from granting an occupational license to any defendant who is confined or imprisoned by order of the court. In our opinion, this interpretation would encompass those situations in which a defendant who has been sentenced to be confined has already served the entire amount of his jail time prior to the imposition of sentence. In such instances, the defendant is ordered "confined or imprisoned" 9 order of the court, but is granted credit for time served g;;;e;tzz,:;w. gA;icfe 42.03, section 2, Code of it is our view that a court may grant an occupational lic&se under section 25(a) of article 668713 only in cases where the court does not impose confine- ment or imprisonment. We note that, in addition to the remedy now provided by section 25(a), the much broader provisions of section 23A(a) remain in effect, so that w person whose license has been suspended for causes other than physical or mental disability or impairment" may petition the district court for an occupational license. p. 3354 The Honorable Henry Wade The Honorable Edna Cisneros - page ,3 (H-794) SUMMARY A court may grant an occupational license under section 25(a) of article 6687br V.T.C.S., only in cases where the court does not impose confinement or imprisonment. Very truly yours, Attorney General of Texas APPROVED: Opinion Committee jwb p. 3355