Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

OFFICE OF THE A’IIORNEY OENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Bonemblr 23.B. Ritehop
county 4torney
Jarrp8rCounty
;raaper , Texar
carsfull~ ootmiasraaby t
your request aI fol&onrt
6. Qso I want td maki lQ:o1ear, if
I aid not in my 8tatclmentcg the'aare to,pou,
the aentsnce read that the a4mnd*at, was to
aorve four months in jail alidpay the 'Wbts of
oourt. As I understand your ruUng,'daspibo
the 'grantor time aervd, and dsrglte the fabt
deiendant he6 esrvsd prior to esataoo ample
ftonomble B. 3. Bi)ahey, Jr., Page &
tire for both ooets of oourt ana tho lea teo eo
et the-courtef four monthr In ell, the
omait oould be allawed %A tho !all 8entsaae
but not aa the Ooat8 of oourt. Ther~tore,
ter the offlaere to be entitled to their Ises,
the soets .of 00urt rotaa haveto be servea out
eubss:;uent to the eenteaoo by the oourt. Am
I right In this interpretationor your rul-
ing?
wSe``ndly,where there ie a Jail lentsnoe
and ooeto semed out in Jail by a defendant tn
8 lPlilJd@JIeaAOF 088e afISS88SaiA OOUAty OOUl’t,
are the offiaors OAtitiOd to their OAC,half
re0rv IA other worda, ie there any dlfferenae
where there is a &ail eentenos and costs aeseee-
ed egalAst a defendant or where there ir a line
and oosto aeeeesea? That ia are ths offfaere
entitled to their half fees in either cam whsre
the mano tar4 laid out IA jail?
"Thirdly,say viahave a fins OZ &.oO.oO
cusdooste of ooart aa a fudgnent in oeuuty
0ou.e against the a~feAdaA~, ana in the 8e~-
teAUe the TiIdg@&PAAtA ainr the t-0 66 a OrSdit
8flthe iiAt3and 60ete that he has alX'eae e.rt-
ed in jail#iOr t0 ~O~ViOtiOA and B'SAtSA@e.
hia euppo~sclnouah lnataaoe, the,.detendaAt
had spant~%i#m day5 in jail prior to thir USA-
tense, tkk3ahe 18 giitan0r8aif for the toA aa
OA the tfAe and 008t8. Can such Wedit be ar-
mea, and are the o``ioersl sntitlfifd
to their
one-halt fee6?"
&ticlu '108,984 and 1065, Vernon'e Anaotated
Tess codo of Criminal Prooeaurs, read ae ~iollcm~
"Art. Viii. It a new trial IS not mxmtsd.
nor jUd,gnrs~t'a~reated iA felOAy eaee8, *he -
santsnos shall bo pronounoed in the pr~at1~08
of the defendant at any tfxseafter the erplra-
tiOn Of th8 tine allowed for UIaktagthe leotiOA
for a new trial or the motion in arrsst 0r duag-
epent;provided that in all orimtnal aaee8 the
judge of the aourt in whloh dafeadaAt MI OOQ-
vlotsd, my within his di5eretioA,give the
dafendant credit on hi8 %QAta~88 for the time,
or any Fart thereof, wMch maid dsfeadaatha8
Eanosable St.B. IUtober, Jr., me 8
spanO in jail in said oaitse.from the time
ot his arrest eaa oonfinrarnt until hlr HO-
ten08 W the trial OouPtt aad rodgad fur-
ther that in all .Oaeeewhere tii 0 defedant
has been tried for any ViOhttiOA df the lawn
of the state Of ``exae,8nd ha0 baSn oonrlded
and he* appealed from paid judeppent and/or
ssntonoe of oanviotlon, and whore aaia m~uso
has been affIrma by the Court of Crlmilul
Appeals, ,andafter receipt of the mandate by
the Clerk of thr~trial aourt, tha JuQe la
authorizedto -iA Call said dSfSA&aAt be-
fore him, and if, ponaing appeal, the aefqd-
aat has not made bond or entered into::rq@#?e
mAea and ha POE8iAOa iA jail QsAdiA&thS: ~.:
time of luoh appeal, mid trial judge xuy’~.Chan
in tir aimOretfOA co-eentoaoethe def,endknt,
and may eubtraot from the origiinl eentenoe
pronounoed upon the a~f88bib.d, t&a length ,of
tlae the &SftIAdaAthoe Lain lo jalL pentU~-
mob ,apprl) provtbdd, boweror, that the
prorleion8 o? t&U kt shall not apply atbor
oonviatlon~aad ~*e5tanoe in f*l~mJ aaeell; la
w&+eh bond or rsooguimaoos ia not poxmftted
byl&aw.”
*APL .v%4. Ii the.~poni#hment’ie ~4’~
other than a fins, the jud@kelitshdl. Spea$$Y
it, and order'it entoroeb'by the proper pa+&-
OlS8. X~,,rJzart:&so aajoage the ~ooear .,j;”
against the’aef~k&nt, and order ‘4210:
oop&+
t&on thereOf ah in eth4r oa~ee.*
“Art. 1086.: The O’OUAtj ehaU ‘AOt be,
liable to~the offitteraAa *itnese’:ba
008te in a ~miSdW!!aAOreaeo where defen
%~ at
paya his fine @AtI-3OStS. ThS OOUAty O&u
be fieble~for one-half of the feeilof the
offloer8 of the Uourt, ~whenthe ddfenaant faifr
to~pay hiP,flnO(land lays his fine out in the
oounty jail or alewirges the ham by rnw
or WorklAg such fine out OQ the oOunfy’~e
or OA any so\tntypmjrth AIUIto pay #ad
half of oDsta, the C,OUAtyClerk shall iePU8
his WarmAt on the COUAty Treasures kn favor
!
Honorable R. B. altohey, Sr., Page 4
of auoh offloer to be paid out of the Bead
and Eridye Bun& or other funda not otherwise
appr&priated.m
The cnae of ?!ix
perte Mann, 46 S.W. 828, holds
that the poser
0r iin
the Governor to re5il.t and ror-
f%itUr8S Uoee not extend to the releaao of the oonvloted
person from the payment of the ooete asseetzedasinst him.
WO quote rroa the opinion liasaid oaes es follows:
And r0li0wing thi8 idea, our
iI:Btate v Dyches Z8 Tex.
535, hold thai the govern& hed & authority
to rem&t the ooats. It seem to be a rule
or eknost universal applloatfon that the re-
mission by p~&.Ionat e fine or forfeiture
cannot deveet an interest in either whioh by
law la vested In a private person or perrons,.
The authority of the governor to par-
io: ir remit rines, forieitures,and penaltie
ie one placed within his power end authority
by the people of *thisstate, to be exeroieed
in the name and behalf of the people, and it
ia ror the benefit of the public. He is
their repraesntatlre. They have not conrsrrsd
authority up011 him to take eway the rights
of individuals or or orriorrrs of the state
the roii0wing authorities in support or the
views herein expree6wd: Ex parte KoDonald,
2 Ehtirt.44C; %tep V. Lrcy, 79 Iowe, 419;
23tst.ev. Forley, 8 Dleokf. 229; St6b V.
L5c0'm3nlo,%I MO. 292; Sohuylklll Co. V.
Honorable R. 5. Rltohey, Jr., Pago 5
heiisnyder,Cb Pa. St. 4461 Hollidey v. People,
6 Gllman, 214; 1 Bish. Cr. Law, 1 Old; &I re
BoYa8 34 Ku. 573, 9 P. 2401 State 'I.Nooney,
74 h‘. C. 98i Ssith v. State, b Lea, 6371
C$it;, Cr. Law, 742, 7841 3 Xmt. 240, 241;
ubr. 250, ZB7; 4 Bl. Comm. 5991 U. 8.
v. Lakaster, 4 &cash.C. C. 64, Fed. Gee, No.
15$57; In re Flournog, 1 Kelly, bob; Blaok,
Conet. Law, p. 2782 In re Yiheeler,34 Kan.
D6, 8 Pao. 276; ?eople V. Cotton, 14 Ill. 4141
i&Cool v. State, 23 Ind. 127) Moore v. Green,
73 1:. C. 394; Nuswr v. Stwert, 21 Ohio St.
3531 hx partcCottrel1, 13 Aeb. 193, 1.3 PJ. Vi.
174; Hawes V, Cookaey, 13 Ohio, 242.w (Under-
scoring onret.)
It la our opinion that the power ot the oourt under
Artlole 708, V. A. C. C. P., eupre, tc filvethe detendent
credit on his sentence ror the tlma, or any part thereof,
which said defendent has epent in jail in said oauae, etc.
authorize8 the oourt to credit such time on the defendant*@
rlne or jail sentence but doe6 cot authorize the court to
releaae the derendant from the coattsbecause we would
impair the rested rights of the otfiaerr in fee’countlea
who had earned the raea. The oourt should adjudge<,the
ooste agalnst the defendant and should not attempt to ranlt
the ooste. In anewr to your iirot queetion It is our
opinion that you have eorreotly.interpretedour opiuion No.
o-4lbQ.
Opinion No. o-1719 or this deportment,a oopy or
which is encloeed herewith, an8wers your seoond que8tion in
the afrirnatlte.
In amwer to your third queetlon it ia our opinion
that the oredit should be allmed on the fine end not on
the co&a. The derendant would still owe the costs, how-
ever. if he served out the oosts in jail or on the oounty
farm or other oounty projeota oubseqkt’to the conviction,
the orricsre would then he entitled to their half ooiat8rr0m
the county under Article 1056, V. ir.C. G. P.
Vary truly your8
k
WJF:Gl ~.-'.&A