The Honorable Tom Hamilton Opinion No. M- 872
District Attorney
64th Judicial District Re: Distribution of fines collected
Halt County Courthouse in District Court for violation
Pla inv icw, Texas of the Texas Motor Carrier
Act, Article 911b, V. C. S.,
and Article 1690b, V. P. C.
Dear Mr. Hamilton:
You have requested an opinion of this office as to the disposition of fines
assessed and collected under the Texas Motor Carrier Act, collectively
Article 911b, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, and Articles 1690b and 1690f, Vernon’s
Penal Code.
There are a variety of fines or penalties which may be assessed and
collected for violations of the Texas Motor Carrier Act. Subsection (a) of
Article 1690b and Article 1690f. Vernon’s Penal Code, provide for fines to be
assessed as misdemeanor criminal penalties. Subsections (b) and (c) of
Article 1690b set out the civil sanctions imposed for violations of the Texas
Motor Carrier Act. While your letter refers to only those fines collected as
civil penalties we think that under Section 17, Subsection (c), of Article 911b,
the disposition of all fines and penalties should be the same. This Section of
the Motor Carrier Act provides as is here pertinent:
1,
. all fines and penalties collected under the provisions
of this Act shall be payable to the State Treasurer at Austin,
and credited to the fund to be known and designated as the
‘Motor Carrier Fund’, which fund is appropriated for the pur-
pose of carrying out the terms of this Act. .”
Quite clearly by this language the Legislature has specifically spelled out
the disposition and purpose of fines collected under the Texas Motor Carrier
Act. WC feel that this legislative mandate should be followed and should
-4251-
Honorable Tom Hamilton, page 2 (M-872)
control here. just as was held in Attorney General’s Opinion No. M-560
(1970) over the more gcnernl provisions of Articlc 1007, Vernon’s Code of
Criminal Procedure.
Several opinions have been issued by this office on the subject of reten-
tion of fees or commissions by local officials out of”fines or penalties col-
lected for the State by such official. Attorney General Opinion No. O-48
(1939) considered the question of the responsibility of the Justice of the Peace
to deduct 10 per cent of the fines collected under Article 1690b and pay that
amount into the officer’s salary fund of his county. This opinion concluded
that under Article 950 of the 1925 Code of Criminal Procedure and Article
3912e, Sections 3, 4 and 5, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, a Justice of the Peace
had the duty to deduct 10 per cent of fines collected under Article 1690b and
pay the same into the officer’s salary fund of his county and, further, that
upon his failure to accomplish this the same amount could be deducted from
the salary of such officer.
Attorney General Opinion No. O-360 (1939) considered the question of
what disposition should be made of fines collected by a Justice of the Peace
for violations of the Motor Carrier Act and merely concluded that all fines
collected for violation of the Motor Carrier Act should be deposited with
the State Treasurer at Austin after deducting commissions as allowed by
law. The “commissions as allowed by law” referred to in this opinion were
apparently those provided in Article 950 of the 1925 Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure, namely, 10 per cent and 5 per cent to be retained by the District
Attorney and District Clerk, respectively, out of fines collected for the
State by such officers. Later in the same year Attorney General Opinion
No. O-1258 (1939) was issued considering the same question and concluded
that Section 17 (c) of Article 911b directly answered the question with the
result that “all fines and penalties which are collected for violations of the
provisions of this Act must be paid to the State Treasurer at Austin and
credited to the Motor Carrier Fund.”
Finally, 4ttorney General Opinion No. M-560 (1970) considered the
right, by virtue of Article 1007 of the 1965 Code of Criminal Procedure, of
a District Attorney to retain 10 per cent of civil penalties collected by him in
suits brought under Article 7621d- 1, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. Article 950
(referred to in the two preceding opinions) was the predecessor of Article
1007 referred to in this opinion. This latter opinion concluded that Article
7621d-1 contained specific provisions dealing with the disposition of fines
-4252-
,
I
Honorable Tom Hamilton, page 3 (M- 872)
collected under that Article and, thcrcfore, controlled over the more general
provisions of Article 1007 of the Code of Criminal Proccdurc. Therefore, a
District Attorney did not have the right to retain a perccntagc of moneys
collected as civil penaltics on behalf of the State.
We therefore follow and affirm Attorney General Opinions Nos.O-1258 and
also M-560, wherein the applicable principle of statutory construction was
declared that the specific prevails over a general statute, and we overrule
Opinions Nos.O-48 and O-360, r-caching the conclusion that neither the Dis-
trict Attorney nor the District Clerk may retain any percentage of the moneys
collected as fines, forfeitures, or penalties recovered in actions brought for
violation of the Texas Motor Carrier Act.
SUMMARY
Article 911b, Section 17 (c), Vernon’s Civil Statutes,
requires that all fines and penalties collected thereunder
shall be paid to the State Treasurer, and contains the
specific provisions dealing with the proper distribution or
allocation of fines and penalties collected under the pro-
visions of the Texas Motor Carrier Act; this provision
controls over the more general provisions of Article 1007,
Vernon’s Code of Criminal Procedure.
Neither the District Attorney nor the District Clerk may
retain a percentage of any penalty or fine collected in any
suit brought on behalf of the State of Texas for violations of
the Texas Motor Carrier Act.
Attorney General Opinions Nos. O-1258 and M-560 are
affirmed and Nos. O-48 and O-3 re overruled.
,P
Prepared by James M. Mabry
Assistant Attorney General
.
-4253-
Honornblc Tom Hamilton, pngc 4 (M- 872)
A PPROVEI):
OPINION COM-&lITTE E
Kerns Taylor, Chairman
W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
James H. Cowden
Ben Harrison
James Quick
S. J. Aronson
MEADE F. GRIFFIN
Staff Legal Assistant
ALFRED WALKER
Executive Assistant
NOLA WHITE
First Assistant
-4254-
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion