OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

February 9, 1939 

Hon. c. C. Fillmore 

Assistant District Attorney 

Klohita County 

Wiohlta Falls, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

tllons I ” -- 

Pan81 Code Of ths State ol 'Pan8 

durfng it8 tom, or Judge thornof 

or the filing of o&plaint ageinrt 

tura of iablatiImat ai nay pemoa 

of rife, or of ohlld, or of.rife end 

on ahall upon appl.ioetion of the oomplioation 

noth to the defendant of 8uoh apand my upon hearing thereof enter swh 

temporary orders as may 800~ just, providing for 

the 8upport of cle8srtsd riv88 end ohlldrsn or both, 

psndente llt6, and may 

reheal to obey suoh o Ig 

uaf8h ?or the rlohtlon or: 

6r ad for OQntsmpt. AOt8:i 

1919, pa 1eSi dot8 1931, 4&&d bi#g., p. 58, oh. 58, 

para. 1." 
Hon. C. C. Fillmore, February 9, 1939, Page 2 

Artiale 602 of the Penal Code of the State of 

Texas makes the offense of wlie and child desertion a felony. 

Seation a Of Arti 5 0r .the Constltutlon provide8 

that the District Court shall have jurisdiction over dlroroe 

suits and over leloniee. Said artlole ?urther.provides that :L 

the Distrlot Court shall have general orlglnal jurl8dlotlon 

over all oauses of aation whatever for wbloh a remedy or jurisdiotion is not provided by law or the Constitution. 

In the case o? Ex Parte YoWhorter, 45 SW (2nd) 

977, cited by you in your brie?, the appellant, HoWhortor, 

and his w$fe were divoro8d, md upon her l pplloetlon end reI 

pre8enteUon to ths ,ociurthat the appellant ru eble+odled 

mad hed earning oapaoity, th8 Dirtriot Court o? Johnrroa 

1 

Ooaatp (in whfoh the orlmlnal indiotment wa8 I180 pending) 

mede an order requiring the eppsllant to pay into oourt a 

oertaln ma per month ?or the 8upport of hi8 ohlldnn.. Opti 

j refu8al of a psllant 

B 

to ooaply rltb the order, the appollaat 

1~ 

(after due o tation and lnqulry) wes held.in 4oatcRpt 4f : 

oo~rt and the fine aaaes8ed egaln8t him. 'On epplioat* 

?or e writ o? %beas Oorpu8 to the Dietriot Judge o? fOhn8on 

Oounty, the a plioatlon ?or dlsoharga was denied. :The 

G 

4 

&urt o? arim % il App4al8 a??irrsd the judgment of the Dlstrlot Court. 

!: 

/.. _’ 

Iu en8wer to yorv'?lrst qua8tioai end l&&.0? 

the euthoritlo8 olted above, you er8 ro8p4ottplly,edria4& 

thet it is the opinion o? thin Doperbent that the Dlrtrlot 

Oourt hai 9XOlu8lve orlgirril juri8dlotlon of en epplloatlOI3 

by oomplalnant, 8OekfXig e hekrlng before the oOwt c@ Jadg8, 

?or an order requiring the hu8band to oontrlbute to th8 8upport O? hia ri?e and Ohlld, under Artl0l0 604 OS the Penir ::. 

aode 0r wt18. 

In regard to your 8aoond qtI98tfOn, we deem the 

IWAmlng authorities applloeblsr 

Art1014 zs 0r the cods or Orlmlnal Pr044dum 

provld44 as follow4: 

REaoh dlstrlot attorney shall repre4ent the 

Stats in all orlminal base8 in the dlatrlot eOWt8 

of hia district, exaspt in ocises where he ha8 been, 

before hi8 eleotlon, 4inploy46 adtsr8ely. When any 

oriminal proasbding 18 he& before an~@kmlnlng 

oourt in hi8 dlatrlot or before a judge upon habee 

oorpus, eat! he is nOtif o? the 84414, and 18 at 

the tltae wlthln the oouxity where 8uoh proobsdlng 

ia had, he 8hall repre8ent the State therein, unla88 prevented by other otfiolal duties.* 
Hon. C. Fillmore, February 9, 1939, Pace 3 

Gregory vs. S&ate, 47 SW (2nd) 898. This oase Is 

cited by you in your brief. In this case, appellant was 

under inaiotment for child desertion. Pending the proseoution for child desertion, appellant's wife, in behalf of 

their child, asked that an order be made against appellant 

directing him to pay a certain sum eaoh week for the support of the child. After proper notioe to the appellant, 

the oourt entered an order, ordering appellant to pay a 

oertaln sum monthly for the support of said ohlld. It was 

from this order that the appellant attempted to appeal to 

the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that v&i18 t!xe order from which the appellant 

sought to appeal was anoillary to a Oriminal prOSeoutiOn, 

the order itself oould not be held to be a orbainal one8 

under the prOVisiOn o? the Constitution, oiting the on84 

of Ru8apll vs. -8tete, 36 SW 1070, and di8mi88ed ths epprel 

.~. for leok 0s jurl8dlotlon. In it4 opinion, the oOurt 8tet46 

that if the appellant ha4 reiu8ed to oomply with the 00urt~r 

,: order and had been held ln oontempt thsreior, and omaitlml 

to jell for puul8hment., appellant 00~14 hare,sought r4114? 

i..~,..by-~&bee8 Corpus prooqdlng and, ii den144 the rell4?, the i ~,. 

--+Akmrt oi.Criminel Ap$@&38 wmld ,havs,juri4dlotlon to,i-.~riw 

the not of the l~mti'o~iirt ln the oontenrpt pr0044dl 

oplnloa. 

.*, 

w?-:

" OM- 

,

lng Xx Part@ NoWhorter, hexwlnebove referrsd to in:@ 

: It would appear ?rom the ebov4 auth6riti48 thet 

" ,,: the flllng O? the applioatlon of the oomplainant to oomp81 

the hu8band to 8upport, although anoillary to~~the orimL%Ml 

pro8eoutlon, 18 o? a 01~11 nature. 

We are unable to find &y authoriti48 whloh would 

r4qulre the Distrlot Attorney to file suoh 8x1 applioetion 

ror oomplalnant under Artlole 604 of the Penal Oode of 

Texar. 

ThersfOre, in answer to the ssoond qu48tlon, you 

ere respeatfully advised that 18 is the opinion o? thir 

Department that It Is not the mandatory duty of the Di8triot 

Attorney to file the applioatlon in behalf of the oaapleimint 

for the purpose therein set forth. 

Very truly yOiU'8 

ATTORWRY GRWERAL OF TSXAB 

BY 

WJFrAw 

:,, I 

xJ!ToRRm OwlwBL