OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Eon. lhrt rora, Aaalln1atrator
Texex~nLl uor Control Roard
, Rxw
bar Sir:
This will aokn
ertlon 30. 9 therein
been comlotea o? a
ext preordlng the fll-
by the Tmi8 Liquor Control
that tb ap~~ioont on Kar 19,
oanrloted in the DLtriot Court
railm6 to stop and render aid
0.00, to whlOh aotion of the Dip-
appeal had been filed In the Court
peals 05 L'ay p9, 1939. On Frbm-
ary 16, 1958 thn ocntiotlon wa(LLIafilmed by the
Court of Crlalrial Appeals and appellant~r aotloa
ior rcheartlrcr wa@ overruled on Maroh 0 lPl%
an6 a mandata ef the Court or Crlmina 38lrppsalr
raa issued on April 1, 1936.
^_. -
HJ*xAI)*y I. ,cd .* cl3*m,,.n . . . . . . . . . Y-Y-..
,4:
Rcn. Dart ?ord, I’aep 2
The lioeneee has been olted to a pear nad
rhou ouuae why tha license rhould not t e oan-
aelled for the rearon that in her epplloetion
ior u beer retall lloenae dated koe~bbr 12,
lQS9 ln atamerto Neetioa Fo. 9 the lloeneee
npmsented that ehe had not been conrioted ot
a relonp althln two yemro next preoedlng the
rlllnff of the lpplIaatlon, wherear in truth
end in lad the lloeneoe had been oomloted
a6 above set out.
*16 the fiat&l OOUViOtlon of the c0Ul-t Of
CrlmInel Appeala, it oominq wlthln a twc year
period next preoedlng the rinnr: 0r the a pll-
oetlan, euoh 8 oontlotlon ae to warrent t to
oancellation of the lloenee by the ~dnlnletre-
tor ror the reneone stated?”
You edviee that the holder cf the retail beer
lioenee involved ln thin Inquiry wee oanvlated In the
DIetriot Court on by 19, 1937. Thereafter, the oa.80
me duly appealed, oonsldered and afflrzxtd. isitar the
efflmanoe, the hurt a? Crlnlual Appeals overruled appel-
lant’s notion for rehearing end issued its mandate on
Aprfl 1, 1930.
&-tic lo 667-5 ) Yenal Gx3s ar %xcLe 1925, reta
aut la detail the requleltee or the applloetlon rhloh shall
be ills4 by u pereon deeirlnp, e retail berr license. Sub-
dlvlelon (1) thereof, under heedln~ ‘%anufaoturer” lllce-
rlae applloable to a rota11 beer dealer, provides, enong
other things, that the appl?oant rhow “that he hee not been
oonrloted cf P felony within tuo-te) yeere Immedlately pre-
06aing the ruing of euoh applloutloa,* A8 noted frcrn the
opinion request, hereinabove qutiod, the lioensee inrolved
herein made such appliaatlon on Deoe?sber 12, 1939, and the
lloenss ue~ Ienued by the %erd oa Deoezber 27, 1939, rSloh
dates were leea than two years after the mendate of the
court 0r C~LUIM~ dipppedlm. Tour opinion request reeolvee
Itself lata the proposltlon of whether or not the *oomlo-
tIonW rererred to In the epplicatlon hnd rsfsrenoe to the
ud(gaent,and sentence In the trial oourt or to the date of
c he rlnel oonviotlon In the appellete court.
&tlolt~ 8243, Code or Crlntlnal Procedure or Texa8,
roes, prmldee:
Hon.8ert Ford, i’age 3
‘*The erraot of an appeal 1s to auepena
and arroat all further promboding la tha
oaae in the oourt la whloh the oonvlotion
uat~had, until the jud@nont ot the appellate
court la reoelved b the oourt iron whloh the
lppeel waa taken. f II aaaea where, arter
notloe of appeal ha boon gltea, tba reoord
or any portion theroot la loat or destroyed,
it say be aubr:tltutad in the lwtar oourt, if
aald oourt be then in reoalon; and, when 80
aubctltuted, the trmaorlpt may be greparetl
and rant up aa in other oaaea. In or188 the
oourt from whloh the appeal wua tdcea be not
then in eeaalon, the eppellato ocurt ahall
postpone the canalderatlon or suoh appeal un-
til the next tam. of aald court iroE whloh
said appeal was taken; and the sold record
shall be substituted at said tar% as in other
08868. n
Umltr auoh atatut6, the dofondant, posataal~
the rl#ti to have hi8 appeal passe@ upon by the aprellute
QC)UZ%, aaaaot be ccade to autter any ot the punlahmat aa-
aoesed by the trial court until auoh tlrne as the ap,,pellate
oourt has aated. 3 ?srto ?raudenbur~, 140 3W 780.
Artl.ele 4329 of the Revlned 3tatuteo vf !'1880uri,
provldln~ that, if ti.e charge againat an attorney allege
a oonvlotloa for un indictable oiianaa, tha oourt shall,
on the produotlon of the record of comlotim, rewove hk,
or auapend his trm praotlae without further trial, does
not authorize his auuptaaion pending e peel tram the aon-
rlotio5. State of rel larew 98. Eel8 PSup. Ct. 0r ?ro.),
87 su 967.
?he aourt, Ln the oaee of Feo:le vs. Trendwell,
6 Pac. 686, 15 holdin that ~aantlotionW aa uued In a
statute providing for dlabemont of an attorney Eeent a
Vlnal oontiotlonn and that a diabemant aotion brought
while the qontlotlon was on appeal aald:
*Xt has been frequently held by thla oourt
that an appeal rraa a Judgment 0r the iormir
dlatrlot aourt tc tba aupre60 aourt operated aa
a sua~tn8lon cif the judgment of the lcmfer aourt
4
Hon. Bert irord,Pii@ 4
for all purposes, Ihnowles v. Inches, 12 Cal.
2W; Voodbury Y. Hmmn, 13 Cal, 635; People
v. frlsbla, Et3Cal. X35,) and by parity of
reasoning we nust hold that tm appeal from
the judgmnt of a justice’s oourt to the
superior oourt haa the same oprratlon and ef-
foot. There la, thererore, no judlJnent or
the justloe*e court which Is now capable of
being oarrled Into effeot; end It ia quite
within the range ot possibilities that the
judeent entered against the doiendant and
nav etcmdlna on the justloo’s docket may be
reversed in the hlp,hwr oourt.
Tn our opinion, there Is not such a
final oonvlotlon aaalnst the defendant as the
law oontemplates to justify his raeoval; and
we think the proceeding to that end has bean
prem&urely oamenoed.”
The suprem Court of %lifornfn in the case of
In Re Rlcoardl, 189 Pac. tW4, in considering the stetuto
involved in the ease next hereinabove cited said:
“In the prooeedlna for dlsbement based
upon the record of ocnvlotlm, the judgmnt
which must be pronounced Is one or absolute
and final dlsbermmt. This dlsbernent 1s net
an flnoidantl or the conviction of felony or
~lrdeneanor In the sons8 that such oonvlotlcn
1~80 taoto remvos the attorney iron his
offloe, or is a part of the penalty presorlb-
ed by the law for the oifense oi which he
warnocntlotrd. It Is a separate and lndo en-
dant thlne; (mm I’oPannay v. Horton, aupra7 ,
end 1s not In th,e slightest d8greo affectod by
4 aettlng aside or reversal o,C the judm.ent of
oc~nvlotlon of felony cr ~lodsramnor. so that
unless a aonvlotion t&t has beoom final was
meant, notwlthstanding that the judq.mant 1s
reversed on appeal for substsntlal reasona,
as, for lmtanoe, that evidence of guilt of
an9 offenme is absolutely wantlnrj, or that the
deiendnnt has not been accordrd a fair trial
Hon. IIrt Ford, Page 5
on the nerltr In the lrmrr oouft, the jud@
mat of dlsbenent baaed solely on the re-
oord 0r aonvlotlo:~ et111 relhin8, and the
attorney oan be restored to hlr orfloe a8 an
attorney end ooua84llor only %n the 8V6nt
#at tlm court that ha8 disbarred him 8448
flt to. grant hi8 applloatlon r0r restoration:
emethine it 18 aertalnly not owpelled to do
rolelg beoaure of thr. reversal or setting
&old4 of the judgmmt of oonvlotlon. nail1
not do, In reply to th18, to 8ay thnt thie
oourt would have the poroer to reatore and
au.=ht to raetbre In such a cam, iz It cannot
be aaepplled to restore. Unleae the attoonsy
her the absolute enforoeuble ruht to ba re-
stored a.8 a oono4quenoa Of tha setting aelde
or reveres1 of the judgment of oonvlotIon--
In ether wordr, unlesr the restoration ip80
raato rollons the eettfq aelde or revcreal
of the judgnmnt of oonvlotlon--he Is depen-
dent on the areroI~e In hle favor or the
discretion of this oourt, whloh my or my
not be In hi8 favor cs he Is loaked upon as
4 flt or unfit person to prectloe lsw, en-
tirely regardless of the netter cf the oonvlo-
tion. Nor will It do to MI that the rule
that where a judquent is based on a previous
judgarent, end the previous Judgmnt lo ZW-
verwd or set aside, the 84coDd judfflGent met
be set aside, applIe8 here. If the tern 'con-
vlotlon* aeane, not the final judgment oi Conf
vlotlon, but simply the rendltlon at a rcrdlot
of guilty cr a plea of guilty, a8 la the whole
oontentlon of thore whb lns18t that People v.
?reedwll, aupra, wan wrongly deolded, the
ettarney I8 disbarred solely beoause Of the
rendition of the verdlot or the plea of aullty,
and those icats, vi%., euoh rend1tlon of verdict
or plea, remain and constitute the bas18 of
disbanxmt, whatever be the ultimate reault
In the oaee. There 84458 to UB to be no anmar
to the proporltlon that the Judgment of tlnsl
dirbarnont would mntinus in foree, notwlth-
8tandim the 8rttin& arid4 or reVerBa of th4
judment propounded on the oonviotlon of felony
or mledenean0r. It la unreasonable to assume
that the Legislature Intended to provide for
4:
Hon. Beti ??omY, 1’664 6
obtelnIaS th lolbeolute and final dlabar-
meat of en attorney tbur pena4wntl~ de-
prlring him of 4 vaiueble property right,
solely upon 4 oonrlotion that ie not final,
end rhloh In dua OOure4 Of revi4w 18 ruber-
quetily deolerwl Invalid, In tha abosooe of
80me provi8ion ror reetoration 48 ruetter 0r
oourse upon the eonrlotlon belnu sot a8ide.
The 8tatute Mces Wm reoord of oonviatlan’
the basis of tllabernent end oonclusl~4 evl-.
donor thereon. The84 worde in this OOnneO-
tion Imply eomthln% other then the mre
ve~4Iot of a jury, which may be raeated
eithar by the trial ocurt or en appeal, a4
entirely without support Ln the evldenoe.
Under our settled praotloe ot many years,
they arc oonsldered a8 referring to the Jude-
moot pronounocd by the trial oourt Uptona
mnvlotlon, end llkewlee, under ou- doclelone,
tho etetute 14 eboepted a8 oontcPepleting a
judment that he4 beoone flnr~l....~
The 5upens Court of Florida, In tha cnee or
In 2.4 Advisory CpLnion to the Governor, 78 So. 013, eaid:
":%ile an offioer my be 8u8pndOd rroE
orrice 'rOr the cormlesion of any felony' the
offlae Is not 'deemed v40antq under teotlon
290 of ta:a General Statute@, esoept upon 'eon-
tlctlon f, and a convlotlon la not oparatlve
~h114 n 8~p0r84d4a8 ii3 dr40tir4.~
Althou@ mob authority oen be Tound to the con-
trary we bclleve the euthoritlee herein elted hepresent
the great welEht OS authority In the Onltad States. In
view OS 8uah holdinqs,.ws are o? the opinion that “eon-
rioted of a telonyn a8 used In the etatute here uhdor oon-
slderetlon mean8 a fin41 oonrietlon. Harinq 40 oonoluded,
It neoaeaerlly rolluws thet the 1lorn8ee Ihvolvsd herein
was oouvlatad a4 of the date of the lasurnce of the mandate
by the Crux-t o? Crlmlnel a::peel8.
m9 next turn our attention to the question 0r
the rlcht of the &mrtI-to oanoel the llosnse of lio4n844.
Artiolo 6670&9 of the Penal Code provides that
Hon. Bert Ford, Pap3 7
the Board ahall hare power and authority to canoe1 the
lloenso o? auy ,person authorized to ml1 beer (aftor
notloo and hearing) for the various roa6oIw therein aot
out. One or the rounds for OanosllatIon, as set forth
In rubdIrIsIon (g 7 thereof, I8 the caklnu of any falsr
or untrue rtateaent in hi8 applioation. ‘&I oonolude that
tha Jlosneaa war ooavloted within two year8 next preced-
Ing,the makIng Of ruoh applfoatfon, 43iVilM ri8* tC th@
rluht or rorreltum of her lloense.