E OXNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
Arrcvrrlv 1,. %kCXAS
PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEYGENERAL
July 14, 1948
Han, Geo. H. Sheppard Gplnlon No. V-633
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Austin, Texas Re: Authority of County
Officers to collect
fees in juvenile
cases under the
stated facts.
Dear Sir:
,Your request for an opinion Is substantially
as followsn
“Is a District Clerk OP any other
county officer entitled to his fees under
the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 2, V.
C,C,P. when a defendant is indicted for a
felony offense and later an affidavit is
filed setting up the fact that such defen-
dant is a juvenile and such case was trans-
ferred to the juvenile afcket and~tri~ed
and disposed of as such?
Article 2338-1, Section 13, V, C= S,,,.provides,
in part, as f 0110ws :
‘The Juage may conduct the hearing
in an informal manner and !nny adjourn the
hearing from time to tlrne. In the henr-
ing of any cc-e the gcnern!. public xzny
be excl.uded, ~11.1.mse:: invol.ving chil-
dren shn1.1 be henrd separwtely rjnd~,npart
from the trie.1. of cases against adults,
‘If no jury is demanded, the Judge
shall proceed with the heari.ng, When
the proceeding is with R jury, the ver-
dict shell state whether the juvenile is
a ‘delinquent child’ within the meaning
of this Act, and If the Judge or jury
finds that the child Is delinquent, or
otherwise within the provisions of this
Act, the court may by order duly enter-
HO~.~QOO. H. Sheppard, page.2 (V-633) :
"(1) place the child on probation
or under supervlslon in. his own home or
in the custody of aaelative or other
fit person, upon such terms'as the court
shall aetermlne;
"~(2)'.o&isit~the ohlld to a s.ult&ble
publlo institution or agency, or to a
suitable private lmstltutlon or agenoy
authorized to-care for children; or to
plaos them, in snlts+ble family homes or
pa~ental,homee~ for.an IndeterniMte per-
i0a 0r time, not extending beyond the
tlne,the cblld shall reaah the age of
twenty-one (21) years;
,"(3) make such further cllSpOsltlOn
as the court mar deem to be for the best
intbrest of ,the ohild,.exoe@t as her$n
otherwlse~ppovlded. ...
Ssotion 21 of the 8aue Artlole
provides that
an'appealmy be taken by any paMp aggrieved to,the
Court of Clvll Appeals, and the oaae nay be oarrled to
the Supreme Court by writ of error or upon orrt+floats
ai9 ia other olvil oatms.
That a, juvenile pr0000abg Is not orimlaal in
nature 1s olesrly evldenoed In the hold1 of the oourt
“$
II he oaae of Dandy v. Uflson, 142 Tef. 60, 179 S.W.
t 2d! 269, whoraIn the aourt stated:
"This Aot does not undertake to eon-
vlot and punish a ohild for the aommLselon
of a orlm . . ..The only Issue to be de-
.- -
Ho+ 500a H, Showrd, page 3 (V-633)
tommIned at the trial Is whether the ju-
venile Is a 'delinquent ohlldB within the
meaning of~the Act.
n
It has beon repeatedly held by
other ioXs, in oonstrulng acts similar to
the one under oonslderatlon, t&at such stat-
utes are not orlainal In nature, and where
their 9~~9080 Is for the eduoation an4 ro-
fopmatlon of the minor, and the Institution
to whioh he OF ahe IS committed 1s mot penal
in nature, the denial of the Plght Of a jury
@Ial Is not a violation of the Constltation.
e b 0
"If the objects of the bat a.~@ to be
accomplished, the prooeediags thereunder
must nocessapllj be civil in nattu?e, and
while in some respects, the ordepa OF the
judgment of the ~ooaPt;nrj have the chapac-
terlstlos of a judgment In a cridnal case,
the customary yules of evidence in civil
oases0 developed through long expe~lenee
as essential In ~~rivlng at the truth %th
Personable oortalnty, must be follwed.
Generally speaking, the statutes pPoscrlbfng
fdes fop public officers ale stz?ictlr construed an& a
right to fees may not *eat in implication. BlnfOPd v.
ltoblnson; 244 S.W. 807; McCalla Y. City-of Rockdale? 2%
S.Y. 6548 an&34 Tex; JWP. 508. The aompemation of
public offloe~s Is fixed by the Constitution OP stat-
iites. An offtde~ may not @lain OP ~ecelve any money
without a law authorizing him to do so agd clesplg fix:-
lng the amount to which he Is entitled. 34 Tax. JUP. TlE.
A~ticlo 2338-l creates in each county of this
State s Juvenile Coupt, a court of pecwd, with exalu.- /
slve japisdictlon, powem, and duties In p~oa.aedings
overning anF dollnquent child, The pe~tlnant pap% of
!! lotlon 12 thereof reads:
"If drrrlng the peadenoy of a oplminal
cha~ge OF indictment against any pergon In
any other court than a Juvenile Court, it
shall be asoeptalned that that said pepson
is a female over the age of ten (10) years
and under the age of seventeen (17) years
at, the time of the trial fop the alleged of-
Hon. Geo. Ii. Sheppard, page 4 ,(V-633)
fense, It shall be the duty of such court
to transfer such case lmmedlately together
with all papers, documents and testimony
connected therexlth to the Juvenile Court
0r said county.
Your question is predicated upon a case where
the accused was Indicted for a felony and was transfer-
red by the distriot court to a juvenile court when It
had ascertained the aooused was at the time of trial,
over ten years of age and under the maximumage stated
in Section 12.
Article 2338-l repealed Articles 1083-lo~;j,
V.C.C.P., and Articles 2329 and 2338, V. C, S., which
were the governing articles pertaining to delinquent
children. Article 1084, prior to its repeal, contained
very similar provisions to those contained in Pectlon
12 for the transfer of cases from another court to the
juvenile docket. This office has consistently held for
many years that when a case was transferred by the dis-
trict court to a juvenile docket in accordance with the
provisions of Article 1084 that claims of a district
clerk, sheriff, or county officer for services rendered
in connection therewith could,not legally be paid by the
State. The Comptroller has consistently followed the
opinions of the Attorney General. Opinion Eo. 0-1468,
cited by you is an example thereof;
Under the statutes heretofore cited, which were
repealed by Article 2338-1, no girl under 18 years of
age or boy under 17 years of, age could be convicted of
any felony except perjury. Williams v. State, 225 S.W.
173. The same Is true under the provisions of Artlele
2338-1. Santillian v. State, 182 S,W.(2d) 812. In a
perjury case, the dlstrlct court has jurisdiction and
retains It. Such a case does not come within the pup-
view or Article 2338-l.
After a vary careful consideration of all the
provisions of Article 2338-l and the statutes providing
for fees to be paid by the State in felony cases to dls-
trict clerks, sheriffs, and other county officers, we
have concluded your question should be answered in the
negative.
While a proceeding of this nature frequently
.lnfllcts hardships upon officers, nevertheless the duty
of supplying such compensation rests with the Leglsla-