Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1979 )


Menu:
  •                        The Attorney              General of Texas
    October        23,     1979
    MARK WHITE
    Attorney General
    Honorable William R. Porter                     Opinion No. MW-7 5
    Morris County Attorney
    500 Broadnax                                    Re: Disposition of seized weapons
    Daingerfield, Texas 75638                       under   article   18.19, Code  of
    Criminal Procedure.
    Dear Mr. Porter:
    You request our interpretation of the forfeiture provisions found in
    article 18.19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, V.T.C.S. This statute
    provides in pertinent part:
    (a) Weapons seized in connection with         an offense
    involving the use of a deadly weapon or          an offense
    under Penal Code Chapter 46 shall be held         by the law
    enforcement agency making the seizure,           subject to
    the following provisions, unless:
    (1) the weapon is a prohibited weapon identified in
    Penal Code Chapter 46, in which event Article 18.18
    of this code applies. . .
    . . . .
    (d) A person convicted under Penal Code Chapter
    46 is entitled to the weapon seized upon request to
    the law enforcement      agency holding the weapon.
    However, the court entering the judgment of convicr
    tion may order the weapon destroyed or forfeited to
    the state for use by the law enforcement     agency
    holding the weapon if:
    (0 the person does not request the weapon within
    60 days after his release from jail or the date of the
    judgment of conviction if he was not imprisoned; or
    (2) the person has been previously        convicted   under
    Penal Code Chapter 46; or
    p.     228
    Honorable William R. Porter     -      Page Two (NW-751
    (3) the weapon is one defined as a prohibited weapon under Penal
    Code Chapter 46.
    (e) If the person found in possession of a weapon is convicted of
    an offense involving the use of a deadly weapon or under Penal
    Code Chapter 46, the court entering judgment of conviction may
    order destruction of the weapon or forfeiture to the state for use
    by the law enforcement agency holding the weapon.
    You point out that section (d) is in conflict with section (e). Each section empowers
    the court to order destroyed or forfeited a weapon seized in connection with an offense
    under Chapter 46 of the Penal Code, following conviction of the person found in possession
    of it. Subsection (d) permits the court to order forfeiture or destruction of a weapon only
    where certain conditions exist, while subsection (e) attaches no conditions to the court’s
    action.   You wish to know how these conflicting provisions may be reconciled.           The
    confusion apparently results from the failure to revise a conforming amendment to the
    Code of Criminal Procedure to precisely match changes made in Chapter 46 of the
    proposed Penal Code between the 62nd and 63rd Legislatures.
    We note initially that section      (d)(3) is surplusage.   Prohibited weapons are not
    subject to the provisions of article       18.19, see article 18.19(a)(l), and are destroyed or
    forfeited pursuant to article 18.18 of     the Code of Criminal Procedure.        Article 18.19 is
    subject to the Code Construction Act,      V.T.C.S. art. 5429b-2, which provides in part:
    In enacting a statute,    it is presumed that
    . . . .
    (2) the entire statute    is intended to be effective.
    Sec. 3.01. AlI parts of a statute should be harmonized, if possible. Citizens’ National Bank
    of Hillsboro v. Graham, 
    4 S.W.2d 541
    (Tex. 1928). Chapter 46 relates to the possession of
    various types of weapons, but it does not create an offense specifically involving deadly
    weapons. In our opinion, subsections (dl and (e) can be harmonized and each part can be
    given effect by holding section (d) applicable to conviction under Chapter 46 of the Penal
    Code and by holding section (e) applicable to convictions for an offense involving the use
    of a deadly weapon. See Penal Code S 1.07(a)Ull (defining deadly weapon). In this way,
    each section can be givensome effect. If section (e) were held to prevail over section (d),
    then the provisions relating to forfeiture of a weapon would have no effect. Thus, the
    court may order destruction or forfeiture of a weapon belonging to a defendant convicted
    under Chapter 46 of the Penal Code only where one of the conditions enumerated under
    article 18.19(d) is present. We note that this construction is consistent with the apparent
    intent of the original draft of the Code. State Bar Committee on Revision of the Penal
    Code, Texas Penal Code: A Proposed Revision at 451.
    SUMMARY
    Section (d) of article 18.19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
    applies to the forfeiture or destruction of weapons belonging to a
    P.   229
    Honorable William R. Porter    -   Page Three     (m-75   1
    defendant convicted under Chapter 46 of the Penal Code. Section
    (e) applies to the forfeiture or destruction of a weapon belonging to
    someone convicted of an offense involving the use of a deadly
    weapon.
    &hm.
    MARK     WHITE
    Attorney General of Texas
    JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.
    First Assistant Attorney General
    TED L. HARTLEY
    Executive Assistant Attorney General
    Prepared by Susan Garrison
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    C. Robert Heath, Chairman
    David B. Brooks
    Jerry Carruth
    Susan Garrison
    Rick Gilpin
    Bruce Youngblood
    William G Reid
    P.    230
    

Document Info

Docket Number: MW-75

Judges: Mark White

Filed Date: 7/2/1979

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017