Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1980 )


Menu:
  •                            The Attorney              General of Texas
    April    7, 1980
    MARK WHITE
    Attorney General
    Honorable Maurice S. Pipkin               Opinion No. MW-162
    Executive Director
    State Commission on Judicial Conduct      Re: Whether or not a county clerk
    Austin, Texas                             may assess the fees prescribed in
    article 1064, Code of Criminal
    Procedure, in a case in which the
    proceedings have been deferred and
    ultimately dismissed pursuant to
    article~67Old,section 143A.
    Dear Mr. Pipkim
    You have asked whether the county clerk’s fees provided for in article
    1064?Code of Criminal Procedure, may be assessed in cases where the judge
    in hw discretion defers the proceedings to permit the defendant to complete
    a defensive drivbg course after which the charges are dismissed. V.T.C.S.
    art. 6701d, S 143A. There is no provision for entry of a conviction nor finding
    of guilt. After dismissal the evidence of the original charge may not be used
    for any puqwe-. Id Such a deferred proceeding without entry of guilt has
    been held constitu&al.    ‘Baker v. State, 
    158 S.W. 998
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1913).
    Article 1064, Code of Criminal Procedure, provides:
    (0 The clerks of the county courts, county courts at
    law and district courts shall be allowed the followhtg
    fees:
    ml Md”Plaza.su,,*400
    SanAntonio.TX.78205
    .512/-2E-4191                         (a) A fee of Fifteen Dollsrs ($15.00) in each’cause
    filed    in said courts: for filing complaints,
    ‘information, for docketing and taxing costs for each
    defendant,    for   issuing original writs, issuing
    subpoenas, for swearing and impaneling a jury,
    receiving and recording verdict, for filing each paper
    entered in this cause, for swearing witnesses and for
    aR other clerical duties in connection with such cause
    in county and district courts.
    (b) A fee of One Dollar (Sl.00) per psge or part of a
    page, to be paid at the time each order is placed, for
    issuitq each certified copy, transcript or any other
    P. 519
    Honorable Maurice S. Pipkin   -   Page Two       (MW-162)
    paper authorized, permitted, or required, to be issued by said
    county clerk or clerk of county courts or clerk of district courts.
    In a prior opinion this office has determined that the above fee may not be assessed where
    the defendant has been granted a conditional discharge under the Controlled Substances
    Act, article 4476-l5, V.T.C.S., section 4.12. Attorney General Opinion H-1135 (1978).
    Under that Act the accused may be placed on probation without the entry of guilt. The
    fees of article 1064, Code of Criminal Procedure, may be assessed only upon a conviction.
    Attorney General Opinions H-ll35 (l978); -093       Q944). The deferred proceedings under
    the Controlled Substances Act are not appealable since there is no entry of conviction.
    George v. State, 557 S.W.2d787 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).
    Section 143A, article 6701dstates:
    ‘Sec. 143A. (a) When a person is charged with a misdemeanor
    offense under this Act, other than a violation of Section 50 or 51,
    committed while operating a motor vehicle, the courtt
    ‘fl) in its discretion may defer proceedings and allow the person
    90 days to present evidence that, subsequent to the alleged act, the
    person has successfully completed a defensive driver’s eomwe
    approved by the Texas Department of. Public Safety or other
    driving safety course approved by the court; or          :     ,
    ‘(2) shall defer proceedings and allow the person 90 days to
    present written evidence that, subsequent to the alleged act, the
    person has successfully completed a driving safety course approved
    by the court, if:
    ‘(A) the person presents to the court an oral request or written
    motion to take a course;
    ‘(B) the person has a valid Texas driver’s Iicense or permit; and
    ‘(Cl the person’s driving record as maintained by the Texas
    Department of Public Safety does not indicate successful
    completion of a driving safety course under this subdivision within
    the two years immediately preceding the date of the alleged
    offense.
    ‘(b) When the person complies with the provisons of Subsection (a)
    of this se&ion and the evidence presented is accepted by the court,
    the court shall dismiss the charge.
    When a charge is dismissed under this section, the charge may
    not be part of the person% driving record or used for any purpose,
    but the court &all report the fact that a person has successfully
    p.   520
    Honorable Maurice S. Pipkin   -    Page Three     (Mh’-162)
    completed a driving safety course and the date of completion to
    the Texas Department of Public Safety for inclusion in the person’s
    driving record    The court shall note in its report whether the
    course was taken under the procedure provided by Subdivision (2) of
    Subsection (a) of this section for the purpose of providing
    information necessary to determine eligibility to take a subsequent
    course under that subdivision.’
    Althoqh the provision does not explicitly state that the proceedings are deferred “without
    entering a judgment of guilt” as does the provision for conditional discharge under the
    Controlled Substances Act, we believe that section 143A implies that no judgment of
    conviction is entered. The section states that the %mrgen shall be dismissed and makes
    no reference to setting aside a conviction. Therefore we believe the reasoning and
    authorities contained in Attorney General Opinion H-R35 (1978) are applicable to the
    ouestion herein posed and compel us to conclude that the fees may not be assessed.
    SUMMARY
    The fees provided for in article 1064, Code of Criminal Procedure,
    may not be assessed where the misdemeanor proceedhtgs have been
    deferred pursuant to article 67Old,section 143A, V.T.C.S.
    J?wlwY&&
    MARK      WHITE
    Attorney General of Texas
    JOHN W. PAINTER,JR.
    First Assistant Attorney General
    TED L. HARTLEY
    Rsecutive Assiitant Attorney General
    Prepared by David B. Brooks
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINIONCOMMI’lTEE
    C. Robert Heath, Chairman
    David B. Brooks
    Rob Gammage
    Susan Garrison
    Rick Gilpin
    Bruce Youngblood
    p.   521
    

Document Info

Docket Number: MW-162

Judges: Mark White

Filed Date: 7/2/1980

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017