Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1953 )

E NEY GENE
OF TEXAS
May 5, 1953
Hon. David Moore
Criminal District Attorney
124th Judicial District
Longview, Texas Opinion No. S-37
Re: Const,itutionalityof ,Ho,use
Bill 93,.Acts 5lst Legis-
lature, Regular Session,
1949, chapter 368, page
702 and Ho'useBill 196,
Acts 52nd Legislature, Re-
gular Session, 1951, chapter
156, page 270, relative to
the e~stablishmentof juvenile
Dear Sir: courts.
YOU have a,skedus the following questions:
"1 : Is the 1951 act void in its
entirety, void as to portion, or valid?
"2. Is the 1949 act void in its
entirety, void as to portion, or valid?
“3 . May the Co~untyCourt of Gregg
County sit as a Juvenile Court?
"4. Does the 124th District Court have
jurisdiction as ,such (as distinguished from
a Juvenile Co,urt)to try dependent and
neglected child, adoption, support, and
custody cases when such Court has not yet
been designated as a Juvenile Court and
where the County Co,urtIs acting as Juvenile
Court by designationof the 'Judges?"
You have informed,us that Gregg County has
two district co,urtsand a juvenile board.
It was held in Rochelle v. State, 89 Tex.
Grim. 592, 232 S.W. 838 (1921) that a criminal district
co,urtis a district co,urtwithin the meaning of the
Constitution.
Hon. David Moore, page 2 (S-37)
In light of the above decision we do not be-
lieve that the variance between the caption and body of
Ho,useBill 196, Acts 52nd Legislature, R.S., 1951,
chapter 156, page 270, that is, the caption refers to
district courts while the body refers to criminal dis-
trict courts, as well as district Wurts, contravenes
Section 35, Article II,1of the Constitution of Texas.
In our opinion the entire act is valid.
It is not nece,ssaryto pass on the constitu-
tionality of House Bill 93, Acts 51s.tLegislature, R.S.,
1949, chapter 368, page 702, since it has been repealed.
House Bill 196, Acts 52nd Legislature, R.S.,
1951, chapter 156, page 270, states in part:
!!
. . . In co,untieshavin two (2) or
more~district co,urtsor one (1B or more
district co~urtsand one (1) or more criminal
district co.urts,and having a ;tuvenileboard,
such board shall designate one (1) of such
district courts or criminal district courts
to be the juvenile court of such county. . .'
Therefore, the county co,urtof Gregg County
cannot sit as the juvenile co~urt.
In connection with the jurisdiction of the disk-
trict court of Gregg County, House Bill 196, Acts 52nd
Legislat.ure,R-S., 1951, chapter 156, page 271, states in
part::
"In all co,untieshaving two (2) or
more district courts . . . in addition to
cases of j~uveniledelinquency, all new
cases of dependency, neglect, support, child
custody, and adoption, shall henceforth be
filed in the juvenile court of such counties;
provided, however, that nothing herein con-
tained shall prevent the transfer of such
cases to other courts having jurisdiction
thereof .underexisting laws."
The above mentioned type of case must be filed
in the Juvenile Court of Gregg County. However, they may
be transferred to the other district court as pro,vided
above.
Hon. David Moore, page 3 (S-37)
SUMMARY
The variance between the caption and
body of House Bill 196, Acts 52nd Legisla-
ture, 1951, one referring to district courts
and the other referring to criminal district
courts, is not material. The County Court
of Gregg County cannot sit as the juvenile
court. Certain types of cases must be filed
originally in the Juvenile Co,urtof Gregg
County.
Yours very tmly,
APPROVED: JOHN BEN SHEPPERD
Attorney General
J. C. ,Davis, Jr.
County Affairs Division
Hillis E. Gresham By&-- c wQj+
Reviewer Sam C. Ratliff
Assistant
Robert S. Trotti
First Assistant
John Ben Shepperd
Attorney General
SCR:am