Case ID: sw2d_2/html/0270-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte THOMAS.
    (No. 11367.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 1, 1928.
    1. Fines @=18 — Governor alone has power to remit fine assessed against one convicted of penal offense (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 952;-Const. art. 4, § II).
    Under Const, art. 4, § 11, vesting pardoning power and power to remit fines in Governor and Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 952, authorizing governor to remit fines, power to relieve one convicted of penal offense of fine assessed against him is vested alone in Governor.
    2. Counties @=>47 — Commissioners’ court is one of limited powers (Rev. St. 1925, arts. 2339-2372; Const, art. 5, §§ 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28,' 29).
    Under Const, art. 5, §§ 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, providing that county -commissioners’ court .shall exercise power and jurisdiction conferred by Constitution and laws of state and Rev. St. 1925, arts. 2339-2372, commissioners’ court is one of limited powers.
    3.Fines @=18 — Commissioners’ court held without jurisdiction to remit fine for aggravated assault (Const, art. 4, § II, art. 5, §§ 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29; Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 952; Rev. St. 1925, arts. 2339-2372).
    Where fine of applicant for writ of habeas corpus, convicted of aggravated assault, was remitted by the commissioners’ court and subsequently order remitting fine was rescinded, applicant was not entitled to release on ground that fine had been remitted, since commissioners’ court had no jurisdiction to remit fine, in view of Const, art. 4, § 11, Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 952, vesting such power in Governor, and Const, art. 5, §§ 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29; Rev. St. 1925, arts, 2339-2372, characterizing commissioners’ court as one of limited powers.
    Appeal from District Court, Van Zandt County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    Application for habeas corpus by B. B. Thomas. From an order of the district court remanding, applicant to custody, applicant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Wynne & Wynne, of Wills Point, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.-
   MORROW, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Van Zandt county in a habeas corpus hearing remanding the appellant to custody.

Under an indictment for assault with intent to murder, the appellant was convicted in the district court of Van Zandt county of an aggravated assault; punishment fixed at a fine of $500. See Thomas v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 287 S. W. 1116. The court costs amounted to §5115.85. In an application for a writ of habeas corpus, appellant tendered the costs, but sought release from the payment of the fine upon the ground that the fine had been remitted by the commissioners’ court of Van Zandt county. It appears from the record that on November 8, 1926, by an order entered by the commissioners’ court at a regular session, the fine- against the appellant was remitted, and that at a subsequent date, March 14, 1927, the order remitting the fine was rescinded.

We have no brief for the appellant, but assume that the legal question involved is whether the order remitting the fine was within the jurisdiction of the commissioners’ court.

In article 4, § 11, of the Constitution of Texas, the pardoning power, is vested in the Governor in the following terms:

“In all criminal cases, except treason and impeachment, he shall have power after conviction, to grant reprieves, commutations of punishment and pardons, and under such rules as the Legislature may prescribe, he shall have power to remit fines and forfeitures.”

Based on the constitutional provision mentioned, the legislature declared in article 952, Code Cr. Proc. 1925, that the Governor may remit fines. So far as we are aware, the power to relieve one convicted of a penal offense of a fine assessed against him is vested alone in the Governor. This view is emphasized by the precedents in this state. See Snodgrass v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. R. 615,150 S. W. 162, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1144; Ex parte Rice, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 5S7, 162 S. W. S91.

The powers of the commissioners’ court are enumerated in several sections of the Constitution, namely, article 5, §§ -20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, and also section 18, which reads in part ás follows:

“The county commissioners so chosen, with the county judge, as presiding officer, shall compose the county commissioners’ court, which shall exercise such powers and jurisdiction over all county business, as is conferred by this Constitution and the laws of the state, or as may be hereafter prescribed.”

See, also, title 44, Revised Civil Statutes 1925.

Acts of the commissioners’ court which are not set forth or implied in some of the provisions of the Constitution mentioned, or in some statute within constitutional bounds, has often been held unauthorized. That is to say, the language quoted characterizes the commissioners’ court as one of limited powers. See Mills County v. Lampasas County, 90 Tex. 603, 40 S. W. 403; Bland v. Orr, 90 Tex. 492, 39 S. W. 558; Anderson v. Ashe, 99 Tex. 447, 90 S. W. 872. See, also, Vernon’s Ann. Tex. Const. vol. 1, p. 415, note 6.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      @=Eor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes