Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Naroh 81, 1939 HOE. W. AL Tuoker a0wy Attorney %.llin@m, Texas Lear Sir: unty, Psxwihar. a pepulatlcm a last prsga5lag te48ml d.a5osounor sad h!luQtmluhmonb 16 asueeaod at a poouaiary fine, ii he is usable to pay the tins an5 oestu adju5~5 againat hi+ ho may for mob-the es till 8eaElciithe $aQpnont k put to uo* to the wo2! khouao or on Ishe aotMty far&, or pubHo ii~~~rown& Hon. W. U. Tnoker, aarch 21, 1939, Page 2 of the ocunty, as provided in the suooeed- 1x1~Artiole, or if there be no suoh work- house, farplor Improvements, he shall be impriscned in Jail for a sufficient length of time to disaharge the in11 amount of flw and oosta adjudged against him; rating sooh labor or lmprlsonmnt at Three Dollars ($3) for each day thereof; provided, how- war, that la all aoant%es In this Stat0 aQntainiry, a pQpul+iQa OiaQt l.M thu tmaty-foe thQw$aa *, aa5m6 '*i&hty W4~16OJ aor8o~~thaatpeat~iour tbeaudd two aIQ#5rd ol4;ao)~"or la aiy aotit1.i fifty (7,150);ul5 lliOoontiM 0oateiI.L~ l papalden o f no t 1 088thn ta ir t~ t-a ung han5a-d an& MTO~ {30,707).nor~+3ra thamthirtyth- mwen&tmalrd~ aSm (30ro,70S)& aad ln wantiu aontnlalaga pepuln- tlon oi not lam thaa twatpe+ena thoman4 rin huu5.rearorty4d.80 (27,849) nor - than twmy-08nn th0tm3a rit0 -4 rirtp cma (Z7 SSll; 8ad in oountiea qoitaln* a p0pd0n or not 1~8 thrn aw00a thoound ate h-5 tmmty~l&ht (lS,lS8)nor mere than nlnekeathowan5 QM l1wlre5ththir3j- (19 lS0); am5 ln oountle8 ooatelnloga pqm- l&on of not leu thaa eIghtem tWun& el&ht hundred iI.ftpnbm (16;SSP) aor mare than ai6htOOn thoumad 8iX hw&l'& 8%Xty+IM Eon. 2.. 2. T-uoker,Marah 21, 1939, Fage 3 (18,661);end in oountiee oontalninp, a population of not less than ten thousand and thirteen (10,013) nor scorethan ten thousand snd fifteen (10,015), according to the last preceding Federal Census, when a defecdant is aonvioted of a misdemeanor antihls punishment is assassed at a peoun- iary fine, if he is unable to pay the fine, If he 18 unable to pay the tine and oosts adjndga5 against him, ho may ~OZ suoh tlms as will satisfy the jrddpunt be put to work In the workhouss or on the county faa, or publio i.aprcmmonts at the asunty, as pro- vided In the suooss5IsgArtlole, or If taers bs no suoh Workhouss,ran or Smprsvamsnts, he.shall bs laprlsoue5la jail tor.s~mcffl- oient lssgth of tlm ts 5lsshargs the Sull aaouut or flse asd~oosts a5 ~%$~*s;st him, rating suoh labsr as5 at not lsss than One Dollar+i 1) per day nor aora than Three Dollars(1S) psr day. "Tha.OmalssionorwOourt of aaah sush oounty as.deflnsd by papolstionbraoksts abws In this State, at ssy rqular or spssial km, shall, by emler ra50 and sntsrad Is the minutes or said COurt, dstsnlns the rats or WA&S to ba pal5 ssnviots Is their re- epaotln oousties for lsbor or Saprisonment per day In aaoordanoa hemIth.W ArtIols 793 or the Oods of Orinisal Prsssdurs In 1923 provided that uhss a defeqlant is ooafIots5 of a misdemeanor and his punishment Is aases8e5 et a peouniary rim and that If ha is unable to pay t.b fins and ooats adju5gad agafnst him that ha aoul.5satisfy the fine and oosts b]rImprfssnmantIn Jail or by bsIng put to work in the workhouse sr on the county farr sr publio Improvamsntsof the oosnty, rating suoh labor or ImprIsonmeatat $3.00 isr eaoh day tharsof. !PhIs art1010 was amended by tha Asts sf 19t7, (0th bg18tia- turn First Called Sssalos, page 194, ohaptar 68, Ebotjon 1, by rsdnolng the rate irOn $sioO:par day to.Q.00 per day. This art1010 was again%msmds5 by Hon. 'Z.r:.Tucker, i:arch21, 1939, Page 4 tti .9&a of 1934, 43rE Le6$slature, Second Called S~SS~OII, page 85, ohnpt.cr ?z, sect3on& by chnnglnr the rate from c1.m per day t,oY3.0~3per day. This article was agaln amended by the 4ats OP 1937, 45th LesZslnturc, 1st Called Session, House Ml1 45, Seotion 1, which is the present law above set out. It will be noted thet the present Article 793, Px?e oi Criminal Procedure provides generally that the rate ehall he $3.00 throughout the State, but there are IIUWNWUS sxoeptlonauhhiohapply to oonntiea oi oertaln papolatlonbtaokets. DollIn&awmth Comty, !Pemm does not oome withia sny or the populationbnokets set out In nttlole 793 and. thereiora,the &wirra+wl rata of $3.00 Is applloable to OollIn6swwth Cotmty. ArtIole 79%. 794a, 794b, 7940 an5 7945 oi tha Uods of CrImInal Pmoedmo am not applIoabl0to Oolllry~- rorth County, Texes beoauso C)ollin@Wrth County 50as n0t .zg;0E;hIa any ot the pqmlatlon breoksts nam5 la ui5 . ArtlOla OeO Of tha CO50 OS Criminal PN0a5IUa ot Texas reads as r0rm8: *& defendant plaoed In jail 011soooant or railurs to pay tbo-tine and oosts aan be dlsohargad on heb0as OorpUS by shhorlm@ "1.. That he is tdo poor to pay the rim snd ooats, and That he has remained in jail a surfi- 0tOe*&th of tiab to 80ti8ry the rin0 and oosts, at-the rate of three dollars for eaoh day* *But the defendant shall* In no oese mdor this .artiole,be dlsohsrgeduntil he hae bean hprlmne5 at least ten daya; and a justioe of the pea58 nay discharge the de+ndant upon hI8 #horiB the same oause, by applloatioat0 SUOh Justl00; and when mob appliaatlonIs grantadd the justlae shall note the same oiihis dookoteu ~~%Iols oeo or tba Oo50 or Orklnal Prooodur0 -Or T~XLUB is toun4 In ohapter 2 or title ll W the Code Hon. kV.2. Tucker, Karch 21, 1939, Page 5 of Texas w?ifah relates to JUs- of CrIminel Froaedu*.e tioe aourts. t&lo18 920 of the :Toie of ~rimlnsl l'rooedure,therercre, relates particularly ati applies particulerly tcijustice courts. Xe have corefiillyconsidoreEthe fo:loring cases cited by you In your able brief, towit: Ex Farte Fernandes, 57 SK (2nd)578 2x Parta I'olly,12 sn'(2nd) 16 16xParte Rowler, 15 SW (2nd) 1115 Ex Parte Baptlnatall,39 6sl(2nd) 95 au&me have reaahed the aoaaluslon that there is no ooa- rllot between these oases. ¶%a Rowley oasa raa daolded Yaroh ZQ, 1989, whonthe 1989 awn&e6 atdate wmi in ru roroe and er- root whloh provided the rate of $l.Oa per day for jail wrrlos or work upon the ooimty farm or othar Impmna- writs. The Ex Part8 Polly aasa was deolded February W.1929, atwhleh time the 1989 amended artlola wa8 ia rtm for08 and arr~etwhloh provldad for the 41.00 per day rate aboreiwntloned. The ISrParta Xepfindall oass wee dsoldsd on the 10th day of June, 1931, at whfoh-time the 1939 amendedatiole vaa In roll rm80 and erreot whIoh prmlded for the $1.00 per day rats ahovwentlonsd~ In eaoh oi *e nbom oases, Ex Parta Polly, 6x Psrte Rowley and Ex Parts Reptl~stall,the data of the orfanses of whioh the defendantswere eon- rioted was after the date ot the passage or the amended aot of 1929 and prior to the awage of the amended aot of 1954, and. therefore,the i:1.00 per day rats legally applied. In neither of these thme oneetawas the oon- vtotion In the justiae eowt. The oase of Er Parte Fernaadez, 59 5U (2nd) 598 ma d&aided February 15, 1955, by the Court of Crhlnal Appeals.of Texas; the rslator, Fernandes, was oonrieted In the JoMoe eoort of a misdemeanor and his pwltihment aaaeesed at e iine of $50.00 and co&S, amounting to $16.00. The quwtlon in this ease was whether or not the relator should be allowed $5.00 per day or $1.00 per day fsr hI8 serv100 in Jail. Bon. K. ?A:. Tucker, Karch 21, 1939, Pace 6 ' The court held In this ease that Article 920 of the C&e of CriminalProaedure was mandatory and the relator was allowed $3.00 per day for his aer- ricea In jail. Thia opinion dIstinguIshed this aasa from the Zx Parte Folly case by saying that t3e oon- vlction in tt!ePolly case was In the El Peso County Ccurt at Law. It dlstIngu*shed the Er Parte RI11 ease by saying thtt t>c conviction wes in the 3istrIot Ccurt of Falls Ccunty, Texas. It dIstinGuished the Er Parte Howler Case by saying that the oonrlofion wee In the County Court at Law of Wlohlta County. The court farther stated as followsr Y'hs chapter In which artlole OZO, rrupra,appears Is oos bavIng reference to a Judgeaat or aonvIotIonin a arImIna1 action behre a justtao afthc peaae. -am what has bean @aid It 1s apparent t?mt the ektntory waatawts make a die- tlnotion on,the wbjaot In hand rith ro-. farwoo to the oonvlotionai a nlsd~or baiora the Juatlae of tha paaoe and the oonrIotIonof a mlsdamaanorln oonrt* or higher jurIsdIotIon. The raaBon for the dIstInotlonpay bs only a matter oi oonjcotura . Slnoa the statutorydirection wao deiInIts In Its terara,the duty or the oourt to apply It as writton Is mandatory. Kowerer, it ray ba raid that the juatlea oourts are limited by the Oonstltutlon (art& ale 5 Para. 19 In oririndl~a to a fin8 not exceeding i ZOO, while un4cr atilols 5, pam. 16, other oourts are gi~an ~urIsdIotIonin lniedemeanors of muoh higher grade and with penalties far more severe. ?From the foregoing, It ia plain that the relator having bean oonvIoted In tira justioe oourt, being too poor to pay his fine, end having remained In jail more than ten days and ior a tIme eufficient to dis- aharge his fine, It Is thought that the reletor'o appllaation for a writ Of habeas ./ oorpus should havesbeen granted." . : Hon. W. Ii.Tuoker, Uaroh 21, 1939, Page 7 It will be noted that in the Es Parte Feruan- dez case that the oourt olearly recognized the prinoiple that a person xho had been oonoioted of a misderrmanor in the Justice court and who wss sarving his time in Jail must remain in Jail at l.eastten days and Sor a time sufficient to disoharge his fine. In answer to your first question, you are re- spectfully advised that it is the opinion of this Dapart- ment that 3Z.03 per day is the proper rate for allowanoe or osedit to be given prisoners who have been oonvioted of miodemeaaoro for oomIng tire In jail or for working out their fines as prod&d by law la Oolllagow0rth a0my, ~0~00. Itlo the furthoropInlon or this Do- portmont tb0t ArtI MO of the Code or arwl Preoo- dure of Texoo a plIoo only to eonVIotIonoobtaInad,In justloo ooart8 gut the oamo IO nandatary OS appllod to juotioe soarto. for oromplo, A. 8. md a u.m ill oen- r2otod I8 just100sotdo ror mIoaem0aaor.A*O rim urd soots amoust .~~.&S.OO;Bye ilie uxd aooto emomt to #O&O crud&w oad~0oto moidtto $4SAO. War Irtl010 QW dth0 aodo Of aririnil ProaOQ-, oMO@I sol& art1010 allouo &MO per day ror Jail 0orvi00, till artIola'?arthorp&doe 8 mInIam of tea days ImprIm- moat. A must lorvo tbo iinimtm of ton days; B mot oorve ton days. B'o iIne and ooot6 mt to #SO.OO, whloh d$vldod by #SAO would moko tan days. 6.0 fine and oootoamouatto(4S&O; ho Is allowed #f!LOOper days ho must servo flftooa days. With rororonoe to your oeoond qrrootlon, uo rind that c~ili~orth a0Qnty &OS not 008~0 within the population braakoto oi any emoption whioh would give tho OoamIooIonero*Court authority to doteamIne wages of prIoonorsfor lobor, Jail aorrIo0 or Imprloon- mont and your oeoond quwtloa, thorefora, IO roopeot- fully answered In the negaative. Very truly your0 WJRAW ATTOBXBY GEHlcRALOF TIEx89