Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Honorable John R. Foster Opinion NO. C-605 County Attorney Val Verde County Re: Whether the fees made Del Rio, Texas, 78840 taxable to the Defen- dant under Article 53,01, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, Acts of the 59th Le- gislature, 1965, may be taxed against a defendant irregardless of whether the duties relating thereto are Dear Mr. Foster: actually performed. This is In response to your request for an opinion relating to the captioned matter. The question which you have raised for our conside- ration may be stated as follows: Whether the fees made taxable to the Defendant under Article 53.01, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, Acts of the 59th Legislature, 1965, may be taxed against a defendant irregardlessof whether the duties relating thereto are actually performed, Your opinion request reads in part: n (W)hen the Department of Public Safety"&'fcera file a complaint, (In the justice court for highway traffic vlolatlons) no warrant or summons is Issued until after a defendant might fail to appear on or before the time stated on the ticket he is given. Most of the people respond to the date on their ticket and pay their fine without having any warrant served on them. The Department officers have told the Justices of the Peace that they are, therefore, not supposed to collect Sheriffs' or peace officers' fees for making an arrest or for a commitment or release. -2935- Hon. John R. Foster, page 2 (C-605), 1 11 .(I)t appears to me that it would be the beit'practice for the Justices of the Peace to deviate from their practice here and to al- ways issue a warrant (or summons) upon accepting a complaint,which warrant Could,be served on the defendant when he appeared at the time ap- pointed on his ticket, or turned over to the Sheriff if no appearance Is made. The Justice should then collect from the defendant,not only the fine Imposed, but the Sheriff's or officer's fee for making the arrest under the warrant and for the commitmentand release of the defendant." Article 53.01, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, provides: 'The following fees shall be allowed the sheriff, or other peace officer performing the same services in misdemeanor cases, to be taxed against the defendant on conviction: "1. For executing .eachwarrant of arrest or caplas, or making arrest without warrant, $3.00. "2. For summoning each witness, $1.00. “3. For serving any writ not otherwise provided for, $2.00. "4. For taking and approving each bond, and returning the same to the courthouse,when necessary, $2.00. “5. For each commitment or release, $2.00. “6. Jury fee, in each case where a jury is actually summoned, $2.00. “7. For attending a priaoner on habeas corpus, when such prisoner, upon a hearing, has been remanded to custod or held to bail, for each day's attendance,$4.00. "8. For conveying a witness attached by him to any court out of his county, $5.00. for each day or fractional part thereof, and his actual necessary expenses by the nearest -2936- Hon. John R. Foster, Page 3 (C-605). practicable public conveyance,the amount to be stated by said officer, under oath, and approved by the judge of the court from which the attachment issued. "9. For conveying a prisoner after con- viction to the county jail, for each mile, going and coming, by the nearest practicable route by private conveyance, fifteen cents per mile, or by railway, fifteen cents per mile. "lo. For conveying a prisoner arrested on a warrant or capias issued from another county to the court or jail of the county from which the process was issued, for each mile traveled, going and coming, by the nearest practicable route, fifteen cents. "11. For each mile he may be compelled to travel in executing criminal process and summoning or attaching witness, fifteen cents. For traveling in the service of process not otherwise provided for, the sum of fif:$?n cents for each mile going and returning. two or more persons are mentioned in the same writ, or two or more writs in the same case, he shall charge only for the distance aczually and necessarily traveled in the same. It is the opinion of this office that no fee provided for by the above 'Articlewas intended to be taxed or collected until the duty correspondingthereto has been performed. It is a well settled rule In this State that statutes prescribing fees for public officials are to be strictly construed against the officer collecting such fee. Curtin vt Harris County, 111 Tex. 568, 242 S.W. 444 (1922). Lim;sio$ County Robblns, 120 Tex. 341, 38 S.W.2d 580 (1931); yaEla ; Na:arr;:C;zE, 40 s#.W.2d-868(Tex.Clv.App.1931);.M;C . ty dale, 112 Tex. 20Q. 246 S.W. 654 (1s ._I inford v. Robinson, ii?'Tex. 84, 244 'S.W.;607(1922); Atty. Gen. Op:hion C-282 (1964). 47 Tex.Jur.2d 213, Public Officers, Set, 168, states, in part, as follows: 81 .To entitle an officer to receive fees 0; :ommissions,the receipt thereof must have been provided for and the amount fixed by law; and he must have performed the services -2937- Hon. John R,,Foster, page 4 (c-605). for which compensationhas been specified," (timphasissupplied) Your question is answered in the negative. The fees provided for in Article 53.01 are to be taxed only after there has been a bona fide performance of each duty corres- ponding to each fee taxed. SUMMARY The fees provided for in Article 53.01 are to be taxed only after there has been a bona fide performance of each duty correspondingto each fee taxed. Yours very truly, WAGGONER CARR Attorney General of Texas LC:cm APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman Robert Owen Sam Kslly Wade Anderson Lonny Zwiener APPRWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: T. B. Wright -2938-