Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

R-178 i#?NE+Y GENIE OFTEXAS March 20, 1947 Hon. WillFam R. Hensleg Opinion No. V-94 Criminal District Attorney Bexar County Re: The matter of juris- San Antonio, Texas diction over felony cases of the Dlstrlct Courts of Bexar County. Your letter requesting an opinion involving the above titled subject matter contains the following: "1 . Opinion is hereby requested as to whether Sections 1 and 3 of the Acts of 1939, 46th Legis- lature, P. 168, Sec. 1, (Vernon's Ann. Civ. Statute, Title 8, Art. 199) (Vol. 1, p. 163 of the pocket part) is in conflict with Art. 5, Sec. 8 of the Texas Constitution Insofar as the above cited statute conflicts with Acts of 1935, 44th Leg., p. 498, Chap. 209 '(Vernon'sAnn. C.C.P., Title 2, Art. 52-1613 and~~whethersuch conflict repeals the Act of 1935 above cited; ***. "2 . In view of the above cited section of the Constitution and decided cases construing that section of the Constitution, is that portion of the 1939 Act, above cited, (which is in con- flict with Acts of 1935 above cited, and which therefore by virtue of Sec. 3 of the Acts of 1939, repeals Acts of 1935), unconstitutional? If so, does the 1935 act still stand and allow free transferability of criminal cases within the dis- cretion of the Judge of the Criminal District Court of Bexar County. "3. The foregorng questlon is posed in view of the fact that the said Criminal District Court of Bexar County Is a specially created Court with limited powers, assuming that the Act of 1935 is repealed by the'Act of 1939, and that the Act of 1939 is constitutional, does the Criminal District Court of Bexar County have the power to transfer criminal cases to the District Court sitting as District Courts of their own particular districts? If this question is answered in the negative, can two or more Dlstrfct Judges of the administrative Hon. William N. Hensley Page 2 (v-94) district try criminal cases simultaneously with the Criminal Dlstrkt Judge of Bexar County In aid of said Criminal District Court?" We shall consider your questions in the order presented, numbering our replies thereto in the same order. .., (1) House Bill No. :362~,Chapter 9, of the General Laws of the 46th Legislature, provides: "The District Courts of the 37th; 45th, 5j'th,and 73rd Judicial Districts shall have concurrent juris- diction throughout and co-extensive with the ter- ritorlal limits of Bexer County of all civil matters of which jurisdiction is given to the District Courts by the Cbnstitutlon end laws of the State In all civil cases , proceedings and matters of which the District Courts are given jurisdiction by the Constitution end laws of the State. None of said four (4) District Courts shell have or exercise any criminal .iurlsalctionin Bexar County." -(Emphasisours.) This last provision (underscored) 1s crearlg unconstftu- tional and void. There is no severability clause in the Bill end It 1s apparent that the lest sentence contained the main ;yoE;;e of the Bill. Therefore, the whole Act is unconstitu- . Section 8 of-~ArtlcleV of the Constitution, first sen- tence thereof, declares: "The District Courts shall have original jurls- aictlon in all criminal cases of the grade of felony." The Bill cannot stand as the law in the face of this Con- stitutional language. In Castro v. State, 60 S.W. (2d) 211, preslaing Judge Morrow In overruling the application to file a second motion for rehearing, seld: "The conceded power of the Legislature to create other courts having jurisdiction In crim- inal cases of the grade of felony has not been con- strued to strip the district courts created under the Constitution of the inherent jurisdlctjon to try cases of the grade of felony. Throwing some light upon the subject is the case of Hull v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 607, 100 S.W. 403. Hon. Willlam N. Hensley Page 3 (v-94) "From the case of Ex parte Coombs, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 643, 663, 44 S.W. 854, 861, the following quotation Is taken: 'Wherever the constitution vests judicial power, it must so remain, and the legislature has no right to invade it or suspend it, unless express authority is given in that ln- strument. The legislature has no authority to- change the organization of the judicial system, nor can that body, under the guise of creating "other courts', divest the district court or the justices of the peace courts of their constitu- tional jurisdiction.'" In Reasonover v. Reasonover, 58 S.W. (2d) 817, Justice Pierson of the Supreme Court, said: "The Legislature cannot take away from a dls- trict court jurisdiction given it by the Consti- tution. Jones et al v. Soch et al (Tex. Civ. App.) 277 S.W. 171 (writ refused); St. Louis S.W, Ry. CO. V. Hall, 98 Tex, 480, 85 S.W. 786, 788; 11 Tex. Jurisprudence, 8 5, pp. 706, 707, 708." These holdings are but the pronouncement of well-estab- lished principles of constitutional law. Since the act is void in the respect pointed out, it fol- lows that it does not operate to repeal any prior act of the Legislature whatever. Being a nullity, it has no force or legal effect whatever. (2) What we have said above Is applicable alike to your second inquiry. The 1935 Act thereforestill stands and operates precisely the same as if the 1939 Act had never been passed. n view of what we have said as to the validity of the 193~3~ct1 it becomes unnecessary for us to answer your third questi&. SUMMARY 1. Chapter 9, House Bill No. 362 of the Reg- ular Session of the 46 th Legislature (1939) at- tempting to deprive the 37th, 45th, 57tb, and 73rd Judicial District Courts of all criminal jurisdiction In Bexar County, is void as being in violation of Article V, Section 8 of the Constitution. 2. Since the act of 1939 is void, it does not operate to repeal any prior law and the act of 1935 Hon. William N. Hensley Page 4 (v-94) affecting the same subject matter - the jurlsdictlon of the respective District Courts of Bexar County - stands as the law governing the transferability of criminal cases in the District Court of Bexar County. Yours very truly, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TIXAS By s/ Ocie Speer Ocle Speer Assistant APPROVED MAR 26, 1947 s/Price Daniel ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 0S:acm:wb:wc