.
February 9,~ 1966
Honorable D. Brooks Corer, Jr. Opinion 190. (C- 602)
District Attorney
Brazoe County Courthouse lb: Validity of Artlclce
Bryan, TPb*as- 4.12 and 45.22, Code of
Crim$nal P+oceilure of
Dear Mr. Gofer: Texas, 1966.
In a tecent opinion requcet of this oifice you pore
the folloring question:
"Does Article 4.12, Code of CrQninal
Procedure of Texas, 1966, conflict with
a Article V, Section 19, constitution of
the State of Texas, and doee Article
4.22, COF, 1966 also conflict with the
a-0 constltutlonal prov1610n.n
Articl~e V, Section 19, Conrrtltution of the
Taas, provides aa follows:
"Suetime of the Peace shall have
isdiction in _crlmlna~~matte~~ of,
came4 wncre me penarty or rune to 08
lmpo8ed by law may not be more than
t*o hundred dollar8 ($200); and in
civil mattema of all case8 where the
aaount in controversy is two hundred
dollaria ($200) or Lena, exclusive ai
intermt, or which 0rigLnal jurie&$gW~
Is not given to the district or counfa
courts; and such other jurisdiction 18 aof
given M the district or couaty.courtaj
and lruch o%her jurlrdictlon, crinznsl
and civil ae may be provided by law,
under such regulations as MY be prs-
scribed by law; . . .."
Article 4.12, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, 1966,
the ?lret Art+18 about which you inqulrs otaten a@ follovr:
“A aisdemetmor case to be tried in jootice
court shall be,trled in the precinct ia
-asi%%
.
Jlmorable D. Brooks Gofer, Jr.,page 2 (C- 602)
which the offense wae comalttsd, or In which
., the defentit or any of the dafendantb reside,
or ulth the written conrent oi tl5e.state and
each defendant or hi&attorney, In any other
‘: precinct within the county; provided that in
any tiedemeanor case inwhIch the oifenee was
committed in a precinct where there Is no
qualified justice precinct court, then trial
shall be had in the next’adjacent precinct
in the same county uhlCh ry have a duly
qualified juetlce preclact court, or in
,. the precinct in uhlch the,dofenAant may re-
side; provided that In any such rledemeeaor
case, upon diequalification for any reamon
.~a of all juatlc+u or the Peace in the precinct
where the, offenee ma.ctitCed, such ca8e
may be trfed ln the next &lJoiaking proclnbf
.y
: in the am@ comity, haviq a Auly ~quallfled .
jUatic0 of tti peace.”
It rhould iiret be noted tht Article 4.12, is very.
‘. ‘~l8llu to the article, $n the old Uods ,of Cri8lnal ProceAlwe,
6Oa,. Code of Crdalnal Procidure, 192$.uh$ch lt,repl+ce&
., Althgugh the wadlag of these two rentloned article6 16 .,
-ao&that di??erent, the Intent ot~.each is to acocimplleh
.the mm pxirpom, xumely, setting out rules dorarrdly’the
_~ precinct In rhich a miudemeanor~case oa the justlce court
. level would be trioA. 39828oftier oa bt lea& two eeparate
occ~eionr har, hold Article 6Oa, to be uaconrtitutioaal.
OpMonIlo. O-&hb,lg45, andOpinloaXo.V+6,1$&8.
The above quoted Article 4.l2,.preicribes certaln
llmitatloar upon~the authority of ju6tice courts to try
misdewnaor ca6oa, and It seem&to forbid the trial of ury
..,’ m%rAenaaor canes by ~jwtlce court8 outeide end beyond the
.. . . llmltatlonr aet Sorth therein. In eramace, the purpose of
this article is to prohibit or forbid justice cot&r from
trying misdemeanor cases when the cat88 doer not arrivs or
oc~~;~~t& the juetlce court lri a manner prescribed in the
,.,;
,’
.
In the case of Ex part& Von Koenmrltc, 286 Sl? 987
(Tex. C&m. App. 1926) the court II ld tn&t R JUeti0.e of the
peaoe court ha@ the’authoz%ty tout& a caei rihfc~zuose ,Sn
mothor prwlnct in the county, even though bhe det6adaat had
the uad%sputed right to have the CWQ tried in another precinct.
Article 4.12, would p&aadeccrtaln Umltatlons upon this
jurlrdlction of justice courts , and therefore It ~1s the
opinion of this office that Article 4.12 ia unconstitutional
eince It contravenea the provisione of Article V, Section 19,
’ Constitution OS Ths State of Texas.
.-2926”.
. :.
I... ,z.
.L ‘.
..~ .,
,L, -
Honorable D. Brooks Cofar, Jr.,page 3 (C-602)
Your next Inquiry Is with regard to Artlcle,45.22, Code
;~~;~lnal Procedure, 1966. Said Article provides as
:
"Section 1. No person shall ever be tried in
any justice precinct court unless the offense
with which ho was charged was committed in
such precinct. Provided, however, should there
be no duly qualified justice precinct court in
the precinct where such offense was committed,
then the defendant shall ba tried in the justice
precinct next adjacent which may have a duly
quall?lad justice court. And provided f'urther,
that if the justice of the peace of the pre-
cinct in which the offense was committed is
diequallfied for any reason for trying the case,
then euch defendant may be tried in some other
juetice precinct within the county.
"Section 2. No constable shall be allowed a
fee In any misdemeanor caao arising in any
precinct othor than the one for which he has
been elected or appointed, except through an
order duly entered upon the minutes o? the
county comlrslonsrs court.
wSectlon 3. Any justice o? the peace, constable
or d6puty conetsble violating this Act ehall
be punlehed by a fine of not lose than #lOQ
aor more than $500.
"Section 4., The provisions OS this Article shall
apply only to counties having a population of
225,000 or over according to the,laet preceding
federal cennsue.n
Incur opinion the same reasonzi.ng set out above with re-
gerd to Article 4.12 applies when considering Article 45.22,
It is our opinion, therefore, that Article 45.22, is alao
unconefltutlonal since it contravenes the provisions of
'5 Article V, So&ion 19, Constitution of the State of Texas.
Prior Attorney OeneralQe opinlone O-6940 (1945) and V-496
(1Pw are aifirred and enclosed hersuith.
BUMWARY
-------
Article 4.12 and 45.22 Coda of Criminal
Procedure of Texae, 1966, are unconetitutional
eince they contrave e.the provlsione of
-293-
sfonorable D. Brooks Corer, Jr., page 4 (c-602)
Article V, Section 19, Constitution of the
State OS Texti.,,
Your8 very truly,
WAOOOVBRCAm'
Attornq General of Texae
B
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion