Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OFTHE ATTORNEYCENERALOF TEXAS AUSTIN 0-C.- -- Honorable Pegton Durke County Auditor Falls Countg Marlin, Texao Dear Mrr . lionorablePegton Burke; Page 2 3 of this Akt, process shall be issued and served fn the county or out of the county vhere the pro- secution is pending and have the sarm bind- force and effect as though the offense being prosecuted uere a felony; and all officers issuing snd serving such process in or out of the county wherein the prosecutZo3 18 pending, ana all witnesses from .vithLn or vltbout the county uhereln the ?roseou- tion is pending, shall be compensatedin like man- ner as though the offense vere a felony in grade," In our Opinion no. O-1981, ve ruled that officers serving process in a nisdeneulor casa prosecuted under Article 367b were not entitled to the sage fees aud mileage as they vould bo if the case vcre a felony, but entitled to only such fees and m.ll%ag%, as are allovad by stat&o in other'tsisdeneanor cases. Fro cncloso a copy of that opinion which ansvers your first question. 2 In reply to your second question, it is to be noted that the county officials of Falls County ar% conpensatbd upon a salary basis, For the purpose of th3.sopinion, we assme that the precinct officers are conponsatedon a fee basis. Article 1055, Code of Criminal Procedure provides that: "The county shall not be liable to the offi- cer and vitnass having costs in a misdenertnor case vhere defendant pays his fine and costs. The coulltg 'shallbe liable fo? one-half of the fees of the offi- cers of tineCo=-t, vhen tin%defendant fails to pay his Sins and lays his fine out in t'necounty jail or discharges the same by meahs of ~0rk3ng such fine out on the county roads or on any county pi*eject. And to Day such half OS costs. the County Clerk shall Sectlo 17 of Artlclo 3912c, providesa n ,..,.Inco*untieswher%in the county officers named in this Act era coqx?nsatca on the basis of an annual'salary, the State of Tcxns ohs11 not be charged vith and shall not pay any fee or comb- sion to any precinct oSfic%r for any services by Nn perfornad, but said officer shall be paia by the Co$ty out of the Officer's Salary Fund such Y jionorable Pcytou Burke, page 3 : fees ma com.nIsslons as w0uia 0tb9rmiso bo p0ia him by the Ststo for such sm~iccs.” .In,vievof the foregoing statutes, you are advised that It 1s our opinion that uhere a person churgea with a nls- dcmesnoru?na$rArticle 567b, Varnonln Penal Coda, and enters s plea of guJl.tgor 13 convicted ona unable to pay his fins ad costs and lays his fine and costs out in jell o;?discharges the mm by noans of vorklnC his fine end costs out on thho county roads or on my kind of project &s conterjpl.etodby Arti- cle 1055, oupm, the constable 1.~ cutitlcd to only one-half of ouch foes from the county. With ‘referenceto your thisd question, you are edvls- ed that lt l..o our opinion that vhera a person 13 convictsa of a misdommaor uwlcr Art.MLc 56Tb, ths costs;should ba tsxea agaimt hti as in other nisdefasmoiacases cs provided in Ciiapixr 4, Title 9, Cock of Criminnl Proca&ti>e. Imore th6 defendcnt pays the costs’tsxcdagainst him ths county vouS.dnot be liable to tho comtsble for his fees. Hovovcr, if the dcfendmt 0u.l.g pnys his firm and dlochaarg:os the costs by stnglng in jail OF vorkl.tqon ths county roadn or on nw kind of projmt es con- ; . touplatodby Article 1055, supro, th3 constable is ontitlcd to fine-halfof his fees from the cot?ntyas provia~d by Article 1055, suprs, Truotinp that the foregoing fully ansvversyour inqtiry, v(3are :