Auwrnv. TEXAS 78711
October 8, 1975
The Honorable Lynn Cooksey Opinion No. H- 711
Criminal District Attorney
Bowie. County Re: Whether there is an office of
,412 Texas Boulevard District Attorney for the Fifth Judicial
Texarkana, Texas 75501 ” District.
Dear Mr. Cooksey:
You request our opinion on whether a recent amendment to article 322,
V.T.C.S., has the effect of creating the office of District Attorney for the Fifth
Judicial District. This office was expressly abolished as of January 1, 1969,
o~,n t h Ed creation of the office of Criminal District Attorney for Bowie County
by section 8 of article 326 k-58, V. T. C. S.
The amendatory Act in question is Senate Bill No. 574, Acts 1975, 64th
Leg., ch. 378, p. 983. The title to this Act states only that it is “An Act
amending Article 322, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, as amended. . . . ”
Article 322, V. T. C. S., provides for the election of a District Attorney in
44 numbered judicial districts and for the election of a Criminal District Attorney
in several named counties. The 1975 amendment republished the entire article
but the only change consisted of the deletion of the name of Harris County from
the list of counties which are to elect a Criminal ‘District Attorney.
The paramount rule in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to
the intention of the Legislature. Dolan v. Walker, 49 S. W. 2d 695, 697 (Tex. Sup.
1932). The issue here is whether the Legislature, by re-enacting and publishing
at length the entire article amended pursuant to the requirements of article 3,
section 36 of the Texas Constitutionintended to re-establish an office which has
been expressly abolished by another statute, thereby impliedly repealing section
8 of article 326 k-58, V. T. C. S.
The only legislative intent discernible from the title and actual change made
by the 1.975 amendment of article 322, V. T. C-S., is an intent to delete Harris
County from the list of counties which are to elect Criminal District Attorneys.
p. 3062
The Honorable Lynn Cooksey : page 2 (H-711)
Repeals by implication are never favored and the Legislature is presumed to know
of an existing law on the same subject, and when the later act is silent as to the
older law, in this case section 8 of article 326 k-58, V. T. C. S. , the presumption
is that its continued operation was intended, unless thev present a contradiction
so positive that the purpose of repeal is manifest. Cole v. State ex rel Cobolini,
170 S. W. 1036, 1037 (Tex. Sup. 1914).
In our opinion, the Legislature did not intend to re-establish the office of
District Attorney of the Fifth Judicial District by its amendment of article 322
and the reference to that nonexistent office was inadvertent. See Attorney General
Opinion H-687( 1975). The express abolition of the office by sxion 8 of article
326 k~-58, V. T. C. S., is the clearest evidence of the Legislature’s intent on the
subject and must prevail. 53 Tex. Jur. 2d Statutes $ 161.
SUMMARY
There is no office of District Attorney
in the Fifth Judicial District.
Xery truly yours,
Attorney General of Texas
APPROVED:
Opinion Committee
jad:
p. 3063