Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1948 )

-
THEA~TORNEYGENERAI.
September 21, 1948
Bon. J. Q. Knight Opinion lo. V-686
County Attorney
Bee County Re: Authority of the Coun-
Beeville, Texas tg Judge or CommlsslOn-
em' Court to remit a
fine paid upon being
adjudged guilty of a
misdemeanor.
Dear Sir:
Your request for our opinion on the above sub-
ject matter is, in part, as follows:
"On August 17, 1948, a defendant was
,adjudgedguilty of a misdemeanor offense
by the County Court of Bee County, and was
naseesed a fine of $100.00 and costs. Ro
ii&Ice of appeal was given and no motion
for new trial was made. The fine and costs
were paid by the defendant on August 17,
1948.Today he seeks the remlsslon of the
fine. a .
"The opinfon of your office relative
to the authority of the County Judge or
the Commlssloners Court t$ remit the fine
in question Is requested.
In the.case of Hiram Luckey v. The State, 14
Tex. 400, it was held that the District Court did not
have the power to remit any part of the fine or costs
in a criminal case. %iequote the following:
*It was very properly so ordered by
the court in this case, and there is no
error In the judgment of which the appel- *
lant can complain. But the court had no
authority to remit any part of the fine
,- and costs, and of this the State very
justly complains. After convictipn ana
assessment of the fine by the jurr the
court has no power to remit the punish-
Hon. J. G. Knight, page 2 (V-686)
ment Imposed, That is the exercise of
the pardoning power which appertains ex-
clusively to the Rxeoutlve. leither has
the court the power to remit costs. Those
are matters of private right which neither
the court nor any one else on behalf of the
State can release without the consent of
those to whom they are due. The statute,
though its meaning Is not very clearly ex-
press&, was evidently internleato empower
the court to fix such a limit to the term
of imprisonment as the court, in its dls-
cretion, might deem proper upon satisfac-
tory.proof of the inability of the party to
pay the fine and costs, but not to empower
the court to remit any portion of either
the fine or costs. (Rart. Dig. art. 401,
Dixon v. The State, 2 Tex. R., 481.) The
court therefore erred in Its judgment re-
mittlqg a portion of the fine and costs,
. a ,.
It was further held in ex parte Thomas, 108 Tex.
Crlm.Rep. 653, 2 S.W.(2d) 270, that the Commissioners'
Court did not have the power to remit fines. We quote
the following:
11
* 0 e the legal question involved
is whether the order remitting the fine
was within the jurlsdlctlon of,the com-
missloners" court.
"In article 4, Sec. 11 of the Con-
stitution of Texas, the pardoning power
Is vested in the Governor in the follow-
ing terms:
"'In all criminal cases, except trea-
son and Impeachment, he shall have power
after conviction, to grant reprieves, com-
mutations of pynishment and pardons, ana
under such rules as the Legislature may
prescribe, he shall have power to remit
fines and forfeitures.'
. 'Based on'the constitutio 1 provision
9"
mentioned, the Legislature clecare& In art-
icle 952,,CocleCr. PPOC. 1925, that the Gov-
ernor may remit fines. So far as we are
Hon. J. G. Knight, page 3 (w-686)
.-
aware, the power to relieve one convicted
of a penal offense of a,fine assessed
against him isvested alone In the,Gover-
nor. This view is emphasized by the pre-
cedents in this state. See,Snot¶grassv;
State, 67 Tex. Cr. R..615, 150 S.W. 162,
41 L.R.A. (N-S.) 1144;'Rx gf"$ Rice, 72
Tex. Cr. R. 587, 162 S.W.
In view of the foregoing it is our opinion
that neither the Counts Judge nor the Commissioners'
Court has the power or-authority to remit a fine paid
by a defenclantafter conviction In a misdemeanor case.
SUMMaRY
Neither the County Judge nor the Com-
missioners' Court has.the power to remit a
fine paid by a defendant after conviction
In a misdemeanor case. Blram Luckey v. The
State, 14 Tex. 400, Ex parte Thomas, 2 S.W.
(26) 270.
.- Yours very truly,
ATTORNEYGERERAL OF TEXAS
JR:mw
John Reeves
Assistant
APPROVED:
RNEYGENERAL