914
_
-.
OF&E OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TRXAR
AUSTIN
I-“--:- “~”,,
~__._-^-__
:
gouroCyllm
--
Hoaorablo Stephen P. Iiorbert
county rttommy
D4uitt Couaty
CUWO , T4xa4
ion of thie Depart-
ment.on th4 abo r4oslr4d.
t aa r0u0w81
t. S67-B Pd., &x144
l S4r., r4pclals 344.
the prossoutton et
y worthlerrsl oh40ls, as
of Art. 1546 P.C., whrr4 raid
aorlbd by limitation.
rd8, 1* hoa had brought to thlr
oka whioh are 4peoifioally oovrr4d
. 1846 P.C., end part144 holdin@
to ii14 somplalrrt8.
“1 iin6 no authority to rupport the eonten-
tion blaoa4, that beoaurr thr bad oheok law (Art.
667-B, P.C.) r4p4aia 340. 4 of Art. 1546 P.C., as
o? S4pt. Z!O,1939, no ooqlaints oould be f ilbd
and no prorooutions had daos oaid date ot 34pt.
Eonorable Staphon P. Sorbert, Paga %
Bo, 1939. In other words, it would appaar to
ma that if one oanaot b4 proa4outrd at thl8
tint4 for hevfng ooamltt4d a 4riniaal off4na4
prior to S@,ember RO, 1939 under 940. 4 or
Art. 1546 P.C., it would 04411 that the later
hot @hook law, Art. 567-B P.C., would be
r4troaotlv4.w
In an opinioa madared by th4 Court of Crialnal
App4ala in the oaa4 of Padlook vs. tho State of Texas, do-
livers4 Irebruary14, 1940, (not yet reported) your queition
was aaav4r4d in thr noptivo.
W4 quote iron thr above nentfoned opiafon as fol-
lows :
“BJ Eo-404 Bill lo. 190 of th4 46th k&a-
laturo, Chapt4r lT, Volum4 1, pag4 %46, tin4ral
Laws, a naw aot was para4d oov4riag tho l ubjaut
of swindling by bad ahooka. S40tlon 7 of said
aot in apeoifio language, repsala Seation 4 of
Artiolr 1-6 of the Peaal Code. That ia th4
art1014 under whloh th4 prea4at proaeeutloa is
had. The qaeatlon haa baea'rska4d as to whether
or not the rapes1 of that aeetioa by fha sew
act aubsequant to tho ooamlaafon of the offense
wou1.b bar the pmaooutlon.
'The ofr~nu ondrr aonalderation is alleged
to hav4 ooourred in February, 1939, and was triad
at the July term of oourt in 1939. The 46th
Logtslatura adjournad on June ?A, 1939, aad said
80~04 Bill loi 190 did not bacoae ettootlvr uatll
90 days after adjournment.
*artiola 1844 P.C. wa8 in ofiaot at the time
M4tk alleged OOaIEfOOiOB of the ~3?fOB08pnd at
L OS the trial. Of aoara4. if Art. 1545.
P.C., had bean rapeah&, and the iot therein W
daaounoad was no longer an orfana41 this proaaou-
tion would be and& but th4 46th Lsgislaturm
;y4 Bill Ilo. 190fA whfl4 r4poaliag Art. 1546,
. ., also ra-4na4te a ltatuta whioh m464 of-
fenses the mm sots whioh bad thmrtoforo been
donouao4d as auoh in Art. 1546. The penalty was
da0 inoraaaod. Under the olrauaatana~a rtated,
Arts. 13, 14, 13 and 16 o? th4 Pea81 Coda are
operatita. They are aonatrwd and gfvrn effect
in Aah v. State, 134 TBX. Cr. R; RO8, 114 9. W.
916
Banorabla Stephen P. Bsrbert , Page 3
(%d) 889, and the cases therein cited, and also
In Sgangler ‘1. State, 133 Tex. Cr. %. 36, 11’1
S. iv. (24) 63; 3tanabury 4t al v. State, 1l.l
s. if. (2d) 919.
*It la not to be nndaratood that ne are
here oonstrulng or passing on the Conatitutlon-
alltr of the Act of the 46th Leglalature Ln
quest loa. The extent of our holding la that
undar *to. 13 to 16, lnolualve, of thr Penal
Cod4, said Aet does not affect the preaaat
proa4out loa.
“ft la thereiota our oonelualoa that
proaeoublon vi11 li4 ?or offeaaso oomaltted
prior to SepteiaIer 01, 1939. Further that (than)
this, it is au??lol4nt to say that the prea4nt
eaa4 does not raise any queatlon as to the oon-
atitutionallty 0r tbs re-snaota4nt above rafer-
red to aa Eouee Bill Bo. 190, Acts of the 46th
La5151atur4.-
Our oplnloa Ro. O-1564 whioh la in con?llot with
tha holding of thla opinion f8 hereby exprs6aly overruled.
rruatlng that tho ?ore5oin.5 ?ully answers your ln-
q&y, we remain
Yours very truly
i;rdellWllllasu
A8alataat
0
APPROVED
OPINION
COhlMl?-rEc
T%?