KEN PAXTON 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

April 17, 2017 

The Honorable Jerry D. Rochelle Opinion No. KP-0138 

Bowie County Criminal District Attorney 

601 Main Street Re: The effect of a conviction in another 

state, and a subsequent restoration of rights by 

the other state, on an individual's ability to run 

for or hold public office in Texas 

(RQ-0131-KP) 

Texarkana, Texas 75504 

Dear Mr. Rochelle: 

You seek an opinion on "whether an individual who was sentenced under ... the Arkansas 

First Offender Act and Who[se] rights were restored pursuant to the statutes of Arkansas and so 

ordered by the Circuit Court in Arkansas may run for office in Texas." 1 Information included with 

your request shows that a former mayor of Maud, Texas, pleaded guilty to a felony theft offense 

in Arkansas twenty-two years ago.2 Documents attached to your request letter reveal that in 1994 

the individual received a five-year "probated suspended sentence under [Arkansas] Act 346 ... 

conditioned upon his future good behavior" and the payment of certain fees and costs in Clark 

County, Arkansas. See Attachment to Request Letter, (Motion to Terminate Probation). The 

individual was discharged early after having "satisfactorily fulfilled the conditions of his probated 

sentence." Attachment to Request Letter, (Order Terminating Probation). Some citizens in Maud 

question whether this individual is eligible for public office in Texas under the Election Code. See 

Request Letter and Attachment to Request Letter;3 see also TEX. ELEC. CODE§ 141.00l(a)(4). The 

citizens also question whether this individual violated Texas law in filing an application for a place 

1

See Letter and attachment from Honorable Jerry D. Rochelle, Bowie Cty. Crim. Dist. Att'y, to Honorable 

Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y Gen. at I (Sept. 26, 2016), https://www.texasattomeygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-foropinion-rqs ("Request Letter" and "Attachment to Request Letter" respectively) (Attachment to Request Letter on file 

with the Op. Comm.) .. 

2

See Attachment to Request Letter, Lynn LaRowe, Maud Mayor Not Guilty of Making False Claim, 

TEXARKANA GAZETTE (Sept. 14, 2016), http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/Texarkana/story/2016/sep/14/maudmayor-not-guilty-making-false-claim/640085/). 

3Letter from Glenda Wilson to Honorable Jerry Rochelle, Bowie Cty. Crim. Dist. Att'y (Sept. 16, 2016) (on 

file with the Op. Comm.). 
The Honorable Jerry D. Rochelle - Page 2 (KP-0138) 

on the ballot.4 See TEX. ELEC. CODE§ 141.031(a)(4)(G) (requiring a candidate's application for a 

place on the ballot to include a statement regarding the candidate's lack of felony convictions). 

Election Code subsection 141.001(a)(4) makes ineligible for public office in this State a 

person who is "finally convicted of a felony from which the person has not been pardoned or 

otherwise released from the resulting disabilities." Id. § 141.001(a)(4). At the time of this 

individual's criminal matter before an Arkansas court, Arkansas Act 346 authorized a court to defer 

proceedings of a "defendant who previously has not been convicted of a felony" and place the 

defendant on probation "without ... entering a judgment of guilt." ARK. CODE § 16-93-

303(a)(l)(A)(i) (1995); see State v. Webb, 281 S.W.3d 273, 274 (Ark. 2008) ("Act 346 of 1975, 

known as the First Offenders Act, is codified at ARK. CODE §§ 16-93-301-16-93-305."). Upon a 

defendant's "fulfillment of the terms and conditions of probation or upon release by the court prior 

to the termination period thereof," a court was required to discharge the defendant "without court 

adjudication of guilt" and dismiss the case. ARK. CODE § 16-93-303(b) (1995); see Duncan v. 

State, 823 S.W.2d 886, 887 (Ark. 1992) (recognizing that a deferment under Arkansas Act 346 is 

not a conviction); cf, TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.12(20). Nothing in the information you 

submitted to us demonstrates that the individual about whom you ask was finally convicted of a 

felony by the Arkansas court. See Attachment to Request Letter, (Order Terminating Probation); 

Duncan, 823 S.W.2d at 887 (recognizing that a deferment under Act 346 is not a conviction). 

Even if Arkansas law considered the individual to have been "finally convicted," the plain 

language of Election Code section 141.001(a)(4) applies to only a final conviction "from which 

the person has not been pardoned or otherwise released.from the resulting disabilities." TEX. ELEC. 

CODE § 141.001(a)(4) (emphasis added); see In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 

276, 280 (Tex. 2016) ("When construing a statute, we look to the plain language to determine the 

intent of the Legislature."); cf TEX. CONST. art. XVI,§ 2 (directing the Legislature to make laws 

imposing civil disabilities for conviction of certain crimes). 5 Thus, a person released from the 

disabilities of a final conviction is not disqualified under subsection 141.001(a)(4) from holding 

public office in Texas. And the information you provide establishes that pursuant to Arkansas Act 

346, an Arkansas court ordered the termination of this individual's probated sentence. See 

Attachment to Request Letter, (Order Terminating Probation). That judicial order states that the 

individual at issue here is "exonerated of any criminal purpose, and ... is hereby released from all 

penalties and disabilities" resulting from the criminal proceedings." Id. 

Article IV, section 1 of the United States Constitution requires that -each state give "full 

faith and credit" to "the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." Bard 

v. Charles R. Myers Ins. Agency, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 791, 794 (Tex. 1992) (quoting U.S. CONST. art. 

IV, § 1 ). The Clause requires each state to recognize and give effect to valid judgments rendered 

by the courts of its sister states. See Bard, 839 S.W.2d at 794-95. With respect to judgments, the 

"full faith and credit obligation is exacting. A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court 

4See id. 

5See e.g., TEX. ELEC. CODE § 11.002(a)(4) (qualification as a voter); TEX. Gov'T CODE § 62.102(8) 

(disqualification from jury). 
The Honorable Jerry D. Rochelle - Page 3 (KP-0138) 

with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, 

qualifies for recognition throughout the land." Baker v. Gen. Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222, 233 

(1998); see also Milliken v. Meyer, 311U.S.457, 462 (1940) ("[I]fthe judgment on its face appears 

to be a record of a court of general jurisdiction, such jurisdiction over the cause and the parties is 

to be presumed unless disproved by extrinsic evidence, or by the record itself." (quotation marks 

omitted)). Absent any evidence that the Arkansas court's judgment was invalid, the Full Faith and 

Credit Clause requires the State of Texas to recognize the Arkansas court's order. Accordingly, 

the individual's release from the penalties and disabilities of the offense by an Arkansas court must 

be recognized by Texas as a release of penalties and disabilities of the offense. Cf Attachment to 

Request Letter, (Order Terminating Probation) (stating that "Movant is exonerated of any criminal 

purpose, and Movant is hereby released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from this 

proceeding"). As the penalties and disabilities of this individual's offense have been removed, 

subsection 141.001(a)(4) does not render him ineligible to hold public office in Texas. See TEX. 

ELEC. CODE§ 141.001(a)(4) (making ineligible a person who is "finally convicted ... [or] has not 

been pardoned or otherwise released from the resulting disabilities" (emphasis added)). 

While this office does not determine as a matter oflaw whether particular actions constitute 

a criminal offense, we can advise you that because the individual's release of penalties and 

disabilities is within the scope of Election Code subsection 141.001(a)(4), it is unlikely that a court 

would determine this individual violated section 141.031 by failing to identify the 1994 Arkansas 

court action on his application for a place on the ballot. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0956 

(2012) at 3 (stating that the question whether "a person has committed a crime in any particular 

circumstances is a question of fact that cannot be resolved in an attorney general opinion"). 
The Honorable Jerry D. Rochelle - Page 4 (KP-0138) 

SUMMARY 

Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States 

Constitution, the State of Texas must recognize an Arkansas court's 

valid order dismissing a felony charge and releasing an individual 

from the penalties and disabilities of that charge in Arkansas. An 

individual for whom the penalties and disabilities have been 

removed by an Arkansas court is not prohibited by Election Code 

subsection 141.001(a)(4) from holding public office in Texas. 

JEFFREY C. MATEER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

BRANTLEY STARR 

Deputy First Assistant Attorney General 

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

CHARLOTTE M. HARPER 

Very truly yours, 

4~~ KEN PAXTON 

Attorney General of Texas 

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee