Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1972 )


Menu:
  • Honorable Robert F. Burns, Jr.            Opinion No. M-1220
    County Attorney
    Walker County Courthouse                  Re:   Questions relating
    P. 0. Box 614                                   to the form of the
    Huntsville, Texas 77340                         Sheriff's monthly
    bill for feeding of
    prisoners.
    Dear Mr.    Burns:
    In your recent letter to this office, you asked our
    opinion concerning the following three questions:
    1.   Does the form in which the Sheriff of
    Walker County submits his monthly bill
    for feeding prisoners in.his care and
    custody constitute an illegal bill?
    2.   Is the Sheriff required to submit his
    monthly bill for feeding prisoners in
    this care and custody in a particular
    form?
    3.   Is the Sheriff required to submit a
    separate bill for labor in preparing
    meals for prisoners in his care and
    custody or may such bill for labor be
    included in the Sheriff's monthly bill
    for feeding such prisoners, without
    specifically setting forth the amount
    paid for labor in connection with the
    preparation of the meals?
    As a part of your request, you enclosed a monthly
    county food bill for May of 1972 submitted by the Sheriff
    of Walker County to the Commissioner's Court. That bill
    lists the prisoners by name, shows the number of days each
    was in jail during the month, the offense charged against
    each, the Court,~ and the judgment where applicable, At the
    -5982-
    I   .
    Honorable Robert F. Burns, Jr., page 2       (M-1220)
    bottom of the submitted bill are the notations "O.K. W-D."
    and "Total Bill $413.29". An examination of this bill reveals
    that 61 prisoners were in jail a total of 291 "days" during
    the month of May, 1972. There is nothing from the bill itself
    to show the derivation of the $413.29 amount.
    Article 1046, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure,
    provides as follows:
    "At each regular term of the Commissioner's
    Court, the Sheriff shall present to such
    Court his account verified by his affidavit
    for the expense incurred by him since the
    last account presented for the safekeeping
    and maintenance of prisoners, including
    guards employed, if any. Such account
    shall state the name of each prisoner, each
    item of expense incurred on account of z
    %%%?&I%       ````o~:d~a",L':``~t~h~fn``~e
    employed and the purpose of such employment."
    (Emphasis added)
    Without more, it seems apparent that the bill submitted
    by the Sheriff of Walker County as above described would not
    satisfy the requirements of Article 1046, set out above.
    Section 2 of Article 1040, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure,
    requires in part the following in regard to the Sheriff's
    annual report:
    $3      The Sheriff shall in such report
    fu%sh   an itemized verified account of all
    expenditures made by him for feeding and
    maintenance of prisoners, accompanying such
    report with receipts and vouchers in support
    of such items of expenditure, and the dif-
    ference between such expenditures and the
    amount allowed by the Commissioner's Court
    shall be deemed to constitute the net pro-
    fits for which said officer shall account
    as fees of office."
    Taken together, Articles 1040 and 1046 require that the
    Sheriff report considerably more concerning the support and
    maintenance of prisoners than just the number of prisoners and
    their term of confinement.
    -5983-
    Honorable Robert F. Burns, Jr., page 3       (M-1220)
    The predecessor of Article 1040, (Article 1142 of the
    Code of Criminal Procedure. as amended in 1911). said
    nothing about "fees of office" and it was determined in the
    case of Harris County vs. Hammond, 
    203 S.W. 451
    (Tex.Civ.App.
    1918, error ref,) that the per direm allowance for feedina and
    maintenance of prisoners was a reimbursement of actual ex-
    penses and not a "fee of office" for which accurate reporting
    was required. That case determined that detailed accounting
    of the expenses incurred in the maintenance and feeding of
    prisoners was not necessary. When Article 
    1040, supra
    , was
    enacted in 1923, there was a conceptual change made which
    necessitated full and accurate reporting by the Sheriff to
    the Commissioner's Court of his monthly food bill. Once it
    was determined that a Sheriff had to consider any excess of
    allowance over actual expenses as "fees of office", full
    accounting and reporting became essential.   Subsequently,
    however, there was enacted the Officers Salary Act of 1935,
    codified as Article 3912e, Vernon's Civil Statutes, which
    requires that no county of 20,000 or more population according
    to the last preceding Federal Census shall pay to any county
    officer any fee or commission for any service by him performed
    as such officer. Article 16, Section 61 of the Texas Consti-
    tution now requires that Sheriffs be compensated on a salary
    basis. Obviously, any fees or allowances provided a Sheriff
    as described in Article 
    1040, supra
    , are not now permissible.
    See Attorney General's Opinion No. V-655, 1948, holding that
    Article 3912e, V.C.S., had superseded Section, 1 of Article
    1040.
    We are left now with the necessity of determining the
    effect of Article 
    1046, supra
    , on reports by the Sheriff to
    the Commissioner's Court. The reasoning behind the Hammond
    
    case, supra
    , depended upon the Sheriff being compensated by
    an allowance based on a per prisoner charge set by the Court
    within the Statutory limits.   At the time of Hammond no con-
    sideration was given, and no accounting was necessary, to the
    determination of excesses or deficiencies in this allowance,
    The Sheriff bore the loss or enjoyed the gain. As stated
    above, Article  1040 was amended to make excesses accountable
    as "fees of office",   Subsequent enactment of Article 3912e
    eliminated "fees of office" as a concept, but made the cost
    of feeding prisoners strictly a county expense. Since the
    Sheriff is not on an "allowance" any more, but, instead,
    accounts to the Commissioner's Court for his expenditures
    incurred in the feeding of prisoners, a more strict accounting
    procedure is understandably required. Article 
    1046, supra
    ,
    -5984-
    Honorable Robert F. Burns, Jr., page 4      (M-1220)
    contemplates an accounting for "each item of expense in-
    curred on account of such prisoner",  Obviously~, under such
    a requirement, the Sheriff must carefully account for his
    expenditures in the feeding of prisoners in his custody,
    since such accounting will be necessary to determine reim-
    bursement from the County. We, therefore, conclude, in
    answer to your first question, that a monthly bill  for
    feeding prisoners such as the one submitted by the Sheriff
    of Walker County for the month of May, 1972, is not suf-
    ficient and does not comply with the requirements of Article
    1046.
    Your second question asks if the monthly bill is
    required by statute to be submitted in a particular form.
    Our answer to this is that need for a particular form is
    no't implicit in the statutes but the monthly bill must pro-
    vide in good accounting form the information required in
    Article 1046.
    Your third question concerns the cost of preparing
    meals and the relation of such item to the monthly bill for
    feeding prisoners.   Article 1046 requires the disclosure
    of "each item of expense incurred on account of such prisoner",
    Cost o,f preparing meals is such an item and should be ac-
    counted for and itemized separately in the monthly bill.
    We understand the value to~the Sheriffs of this State
    in specifying a particular form to be used in preparing
    the monthly bill for feeding prisoners in his charge, but
    no one form would, fit all circumstances to be found state-
    wide and we will not attempt to prescribe one, The Commis-
    sioner's Courts of this State are entitled to know precisely
    what the Sheriff in their county actually expends in feeding
    prisoners and how that expenditure is determined.   Any form
    which accomplishes this in accord with Article 1046 will be
    satisfactory.
    SUMMARY
    The Sheriff's monthly food bill for
    feeding prisoners in his care required by
    Article 1046, Vernon's Code of Criminal Pro-
    cedure, to be submitted to the Commissioner's
    Court must specifically show the name of each
    prisoner,.each item of expense incurred on
    account of such prisoner, and the date of each
    -5985-
    .   .
    Honorable Robert F. Burns, Jr., page 5           (M-1220)
    item, The monthly county food bill for
    May of 1972 submitted by the Sheriff of
    Walker County to the Commissioner's Court
    does not satisfy these requirements.
    Article 1046 does not, however,
    prescribe a specific form to be used by
    the Sheriff in making his verified account
    of expense incurred by him in the feeding
    of prisoners.  It is proper and necessary
    to include in this monthly food bill the
    cost of labor involved in preparing the
    meals for prisoners.
    ctfully submitted,
    zra?  .c-Gtzz
    MARTIN
    neral of Texas
    Prepared by James H. Quick
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Kerns Taylor, Chairman
    W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
    Ben Harrison
    Scott Garrison
    Bill Campbell
    Lewis Jones
    SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL
    Staff Legal Assistant
    ALFREDWALKER
    Executive Assistant
    NOLA WHITE
    First Assistant
    -5986-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-1220

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1972

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017