Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

THE[E,``ORNEYGENERAI~
OF TEXAS
AUBTIN. T-s 78711
November 5, 1974
The Honorable Tim Curry Opinion No. H- 441
Criminal District Attorney
Tarrant County Re: Whether a county bail
Fort Worth, Texas 76102 bond board may use the prior
conviction of a felony as
evidence in determining
whether an applicant for a
bail bond license satisfies
the requirements of V. T. C. S.
art. 2372``3.
Dear Mr. Curry:
You have asked our opinion as to whether a county bail bond board
may refuse to issue a license to an applicant who was convicted of two
felonies twenty years ago. Both sentences have been completed, although
no pardon has been granted.
Article 2372p-3 lists the requirements for obtaining a license as
a bondsman. A person who desires to obtain a license must submit an
application which, according to section 6(b) of the Act shall be
. . . accompanied by letters of recommendation
from three reputable persons who have known the
applicant for a period of at least three years. Each
letter shall recommend applicant as having a repu-
tation of honesty, truthfulness, fair dealing, and
competency and shall recommend that the permit
be granted to the applicant. (emphasis added)
Section 9(a) lists two grounds on which licenses are to be denied.
p. 2034
The Honorable Tim Curry page 2 (H-441)
No license may be issued to any person who:
Q is bankrupt or insolvent; or
(2) has had his license revoked for default upon
a bond and has not satisfied the obligation of the
bond.
Section 9 also provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a license.
One of these is conviction of a felony.
Thus, although the Legislature specifically permits suspension
and revocation of licenses of bondsmen who are convicted of felonies,
there is nothing in the Act to suggest that conviction of a felony will
serve to automatically deny a license to an applicant. Had the Legis-
lature intended to include this ground as a basis for automatic denial of
a license, we believeit would have said so as it has done in other licens-
ing statutes. See e.g., V. T. C.S., art. 4413 (29bb); V. T. C. S., art. 4570;
Attorney General Opinion M-884 0971) ; Attorney General Opinion V-1047
0950).
However, section 5 (g) (2) of the Act gives the County Bail Bond
Board the power and the duty
To conduct hearings and make determinations
respecting,the issuance of licenses to bondsmen
within the provisions of this Act and to issue
licenses to those applicants who qualify under the
terms of this Act.
It is our opinion that section 5(g). read in conjunction with section
6(b), authorizes the Board to investigate an applicant’s reputation of
honesty, truthfulness, fair dealing and competency. A felony conviction
for a crime which concerns these specific character traits may be examined,
to determine whether the applicant meets the statutory requirement&
The fact. $hat the felonies in this particular case were committed
twenty years ago raises the question of whether such convictions are too
remote to be considered by the Board, even under the standards we have
discussed above. We cannot state as a matter of law that twenty year old
COnVictiOns are too remote to be considered by the Board in its decision to
grant or deny a license. --But see Dillard v. State, 218 S. W. 2d 476 (Ten.
p. 2035
The Honorable Tim Curry page 3 (H-441)
Crim. 1949); Harding v. State, 208 S. W. 2d 892 (Tex. Grim. 1948); and
Perez v. State, 150 S. W. 2d 402 (Tex. Crim. 1941). cases which hold
that ‘most convictions over 10 years old must be accompanied by evidence
of lack of reformation to be admissible evidence on a character issue.
SUMMARY
An applicant’s felony conviction for a crime which
concerns the specific character traits listed in Article
2372p-3, section 6(b), i. e., honesty, truthfulness,
fair dealing, and competency, may be evidence which
the Bail Bond Board can use to determine whether the
applicant has met the statutory requirements. Unless
such convictions specifically concern the above-mentioned
characteristics and are accompanied by evidence of lack
of reformation, conviction of felonies twenty years ago
is too remote to be considered in determining whether
to issue a license to an applicant.
Very truly yours,
Attorney General of Texas
APPSOVED:
DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman
Opinion Committee
lg
p. 2036