Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

THE[E,~~ORNEYGENERAI~ OF TEXAS AUBTIN. T-s 78711 November 5, 1974 The Honorable Tim Curry Opinion No. H- 441 Criminal District Attorney Tarrant County Re: Whether a county bail Fort Worth, Texas 76102 bond board may use the prior conviction of a felony as evidence in determining whether an applicant for a bail bond license satisfies the requirements of V. T. C. S. art. 2372~~3. Dear Mr. Curry: You have asked our opinion as to whether a county bail bond board may refuse to issue a license to an applicant who was convicted of two felonies twenty years ago. Both sentences have been completed, although no pardon has been granted. Article 2372p-3 lists the requirements for obtaining a license as a bondsman. A person who desires to obtain a license must submit an application which, according to section 6(b) of the Act shall be . . . accompanied by letters of recommendation from three reputable persons who have known the applicant for a period of at least three years. Each letter shall recommend applicant as having a repu- tation of honesty, truthfulness, fair dealing, and competency and shall recommend that the permit be granted to the applicant. (emphasis added) Section 9(a) lists two grounds on which licenses are to be denied. p. 2034 The Honorable Tim Curry page 2 (H-441) No license may be issued to any person who: Q is bankrupt or insolvent; or (2) has had his license revoked for default upon a bond and has not satisfied the obligation of the bond. Section 9 also provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a license. One of these is conviction of a felony. Thus, although the Legislature specifically permits suspension and revocation of licenses of bondsmen who are convicted of felonies, there is nothing in the Act to suggest that conviction of a felony will serve to automatically deny a license to an applicant. Had the Legis- lature intended to include this ground as a basis for automatic denial of a license, we believeit would have said so as it has done in other licens- ing statutes. See e.g., V. T. C.S., art. 4413 (29bb); V. T. C. S., art. 4570; Attorney General Opinion M-884 0971) ; Attorney General Opinion V-1047 0950). However, section 5 (g) (2) of the Act gives the County Bail Bond Board the power and the duty To conduct hearings and make determinations respecting,the issuance of licenses to bondsmen within the provisions of this Act and to issue licenses to those applicants who qualify under the terms of this Act. It is our opinion that section 5(g). read in conjunction with section 6(b), authorizes the Board to investigate an applicant’s reputation of honesty, truthfulness, fair dealing and competency. A felony conviction for a crime which concerns these specific character traits may be examined, to determine whether the applicant meets the statutory requirement& The fact. $hat the felonies in this particular case were committed twenty years ago raises the question of whether such convictions are too remote to be considered by the Board, even under the standards we have discussed above. We cannot state as a matter of law that twenty year old COnVictiOns are too remote to be considered by the Board in its decision to grant or deny a license. --But see Dillard v. State, 218 S. W. 2d 476 (Ten. p. 2035 The Honorable Tim Curry page 3 (H-441) Crim. 1949); Harding v. State, 208 S. W. 2d 892 (Tex. Grim. 1948); and Perez v. State, 150 S. W. 2d 402 (Tex. Crim. 1941). cases which hold that ‘most convictions over 10 years old must be accompanied by evidence of lack of reformation to be admissible evidence on a character issue. SUMMARY An applicant’s felony conviction for a crime which concerns the specific character traits listed in Article 2372p-3, section 6(b), i. e., honesty, truthfulness, fair dealing, and competency, may be evidence which the Bail Bond Board can use to determine whether the applicant has met the statutory requirements. Unless such convictions specifically concern the above-mentioned characteristics and are accompanied by evidence of lack of reformation, conviction of felonies twenty years ago is too remote to be considered in determining whether to issue a license to an applicant. Very truly yours, Attorney General of Texas APPSOVED: DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee lg p. 2036