Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

3.16 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 79th fudfaial A11o0, Attornsr Eoaorablr r’raak B. Lloyd DIstrl6t Dlrtrlat Toracr “&fials 4605. The St&to f3oard of Sodl- sal Pxazfzinere sey rcfkre to abdt person8 to Ita euwlnations aoa to forue license to -ma- tloe ~~~dlolno to any psraon, for any of the ,folluwln~ reason8 I Eonorable Prank B. Llofi, Tago 2 n . . . r "(2) Conrlotlonof 6 orlme of the a0 or a :I felony, or one whiah lnvolv4r moral turp 't" tuaa . . .* “Artlclit 4506. Tbo Dlrtriat Cat&a of th;r State shall have the right to rwoko, 08noe1, or oucpend tho lloonre OS any ~praotltlon~r or” mdl- olne upon proof of the violation of the lrr In may respsot lc regard tbsrato, or for any oaam for whloh the State Board OS Yedioal YWmlnm~ rhall be authorited to refuse to admit pemocn to it8 ema- lnetlon, 05 pzovidsd ln ArUe 4605 oi tha Revllrea Civil 3tntutcs of Toxata of 1025, a8 anondcd by #is tot, and It oh311 bo the duty of the eeveral Dls- trlct and County Attorneys of t?315 state to file 3na posocuto 32proprlste Judlolol prooecdin~ for 3uch rwoc0tlon, c3nosllatlon, or susgenslon, in the txmt of the state, on request of the Eke1-5 or t&%!ieEl i:xndnero.' x6 bc!licwe thct the phrafie "the violation of the IP::JIn any ros>bct In re!:srd thereto* as used 1~ Article 45CG, 5qma, rsfers szly to such law5 83 rcllnte to the lssaanae, suspenolo3 or rcvooatlon of the lloeme to praotice 2ealo;ne, rather thsa ta tka violntion al the 13~3 of the State Gensr- 3lly. Tour caostlon, therefore, raoolves ltselt to a oon- struation ST the ward *oonvlotion,* 3s used in pdraqraph (2) of hrtlole 4505. 30~s ft man a Jury rindin of 6uilty upon on LnClatmnt for e felony or does It m3n a Sinal aonvlatlon'l Xherr? a ausyn@ed smtonoe haa been &ranted *celther the verdiot of cOmiOtiOn nor the jud@mut eutercd thereon stall becom Z?nal' . . ." Artiole 77 El,'Code of CrJsrLnol Pm- ccdure, 1325. "Vnder the temw of our statute relative to sua?endsd mxtozcs, ithan baen herd that in E case where one rcoelvea such santenoe the judmcnt ia not ilcal anE oannot be appealed IrozP -- Z'ones v. State, z??olS. k. 1012. If by the h7xa nCowlctf~n* as usea in Article 4509, the Leglsla- ture intandod to zmm only a fin.31 oonvtction, oleerly a phyal- clan a~uld rst be oubjoot to location of his ~li.oerueto praotios n;edlclnc, whom kls strztonos brad bcon suspended upon cocviction oc" 5 felony. . Honorable Prank 8. Lloyd, Page 3 rho oourtr hare 80 oowtrued the word woonriotod~ In the statute (sinae amendedd) ubloh msdo one who heid bea comiotad or l felony lnOOmpete5t es a wltnerr. Bee ltapin- i 084 V. state, 168 Se P. 8081 Slmoads tq State, lib 8. V. 1064; Oolcnzan V. state, 187 s. 8. 481. On the other hand, the oourta harr given the op- posite oonstrimtibn to the 8sm wWd Vhdi us04 %n oertaia other rtotutss. ze c,aotc sron the opl?liox.loi Judge Latti- gy Mgay Court oi Crimliml Agpeelm in, Xill v. Btete, %S . $. *It 8ems olear . . . that by the we of the lsords ‘convicted or a folonyl in reotlons 1, E, 3, tnd 5 OS the statute nnder dlsonssion (the euependsd aentcnoe lsw., Article ObSb-f, Code of Crfmlnal Pmor- dure) wes nca:lt thst ststus resultfa6 fro= a Jude- nent based on the verdiat oi a jury ilndlng the’ eo- CUo& @Iilty Ctf BOW $dOnY. The t6rCi ‘5OUViOtiO5’ 1s used ln aany of our statutes in mob the 8-0 BamDO. . . . our OCEOIU~OI~ n-02 tht ab0~a mt6- mats that one ‘oonvlctcd of a relonp whose sentonoe is suz+ptnetd 1s n~.thil!l the oo~prthtllslon 0r this otatute, whea It used tho eqimession *oonvloted of a felony;** Llkswlse the +wt of Criminal ApFesls of Texas has construed the rnrd Roontlotlon” as used In Artlole 4, (3eotion 11 of tht Texas Co.wtltutlon ns meaoln~ merely a rtrdlot ‘of gutlty, rather than a flcel oonvlotion. see: ~08s Y* State, 298 s. z. 588 and Duke v. Stats, 291 3. a. 539. In the Duke ease, Judge Uorrow wed th6 following lenL~aee: “Acoordlng to the wel&ht OS the preowlants, it seem, in its relation to the aowtr to pardon, the term *oonvlotlon’ refers to B verdict of ‘eulltp* by a jury and 1s not restrloted to R final JudQcsnt on suoh vudiot .* It is apprent fnn tht fort&ng that tht Texas oourts hnvt not follomd any fired lnttrpretetion of the word nconvlotlon* as used in Vnrlous statutes. The question haa not been dlreotlp nlaed uodsr the statute under oonaideretion. iievooatlons of physlolens’ lloensss upon’ottier grounda, under tbla ntntute (prior to lte 1039 manr?mnt) hnre been twioe SW- tairad in the cases of Cumln@m v. State er ml Shook, 79 Xonor-ablo Prank 3. tloyd, Fags 4 3. IE.(&I) 180 [writ of em-or retuo~dd and 8 oer Y. St0te, 109 9. a:.kd) 1150 (nit of orror dlomlooo6 P. iFa cnolose herewith 009~ ot oar Opinioa Ho. O-1894, ad&owed to the fkn. !3ert Ford, Wherein tb0 ward "oonrleted~ ao wed ln the Texas Liquor Cont.tml hot 10 oolldtrued. The 0 lnion review deoioiona Wm other 0tator vhloh lndloatr t & t the walght Oi authority i0 in istOr OS the via thet ~oonrlotlOn"0601111 8 a 60~18tlOr: UrilOS0S 000tr0~ io- tent is wnltlrtsd by tho statute In whloh the word lo use& Xe oosolude, therefore, tha,t the phmos *oonvio- tion of a orlwe OS the grada OS ftlonp,” as uacd in leo tlo n (a) of Artiole 4505, Rrriaed Girl1 Stntttteo ot Texas, hoald be oonstrusd to men u oonoiotlon.O0naagnently, a ;?h si- olsn who had received a suepsndad santenat upon b oonrlot I oa ot II ttlony, vmld not bc aubjaot to hare No llocmse to prao- tics zedloine revoked upon that ;,muml alone, alnoe h$s oma- vlotlon would cot be tloal. Ee wlah to golnt out that nolthtr the courte ot cioll sg~es1.s car ths suprsme court ot Texas have pnessd upon the questloq x%arofora our oplnlon hsreon oannot be given the aam weight os thoyb It WeFt baaed u?on tbe prior dealsiam ot our a$?ollata osurts beiox ahom t!ils cpotlon mxngbe prtssnteu. YDur3 very traly ‘By- q%Lc& ‘iralter Ii. Gooh xaaistant