DAN MORALES

ATTORNEY CENERAL 

## QBffice

oftfy !ZWmep &nerd &ate of ?aexae January 30,1992

Honorable Eddie Cavaxos chairman Budget and Oversight Committee P. 0. Box2910 Austin, Texas 78768-2910 Opinion No. DM-82 Re: Whether the Corpus Christi Municipal Court has jurisdiction in certain cases involving the issuance of bad checks (RQ-222) Dear Representative Cavaxos: You ask whether the Corpus Christi Municipal Court has jurisdiction in cases involving the issuance of abad check, specifically in a situation in which a bad check is passed in exchange for property or services, as distinguished from a situation inwhich abad check isissued solely for payment ofmoney. We willbegin by examining the jurisdiction of municipal courts in cases involving state law violations, and we will then address the penal provisions that pertain to your question. A municipal court in each incorporated municipality is created by statute.. See Gov’t Code 929.002.The jurisdictional limits ofthe municipal courts in regard to criminal cases arising under state law are set forth in section 29.003(b)t of the Government Code as follows:

(b) The municipal court has concurrent jurisdiction with the justice court ofa precinct in which the municipality is located in all criminal cases arising under state lawthat: (1) arise within the territorial limits ofthe municipality; and (2) are punishable only by a fine not to exceed $500.
btion 29.CO3(%)

of the Government Code was amended by House Bii 407,Acts 1991,7Zd Leg., ch. lOE,07, at 682, cffcetin Scptcmbcr l, 1991. Before this amendment, the amount of the fme for municipal courtjurisdiction ofc&ii cass was SXIO.

P- 409Honorable Eddie Cavaxos -Page 2 (DM-82)

Seealso Code Crim. Proc. art. 4.12 (stating samejurisdictional limitations). Violation ofsection 32.41ofthe Penal Code, the issuance ofa bad check for payment of money, is a Class C misdemeanor. Penal Code 532.41(f). A Class C misdemeanor is punishable by fine only, not to exceed $500. Id 5 122323.2 Because the punishment for a Class C misdemeanor conforms to the statutory jurisdiction of municipal andjustice courts, the two courts will always have concurrent jurisdiction over cases involving the prosecution of the offense of issuance of a bad check for payment ofmoney, when the offense is committed within the territorial limits of the municipality. SeeAttorney General Opinion V-104 (1947). You askwhether the municipal court hasjurisdiction over cases involving the issuance ofa bad check when the check is issued for property3 or services. We must determine the offense that can be properly charged insuch situations, in order to determine whether the municipal court of Corpus Christi may hear the case. Passing a worthless check in exchange for property or services violates the theft statutes. Penal Code $531.03 (theft), 31.04 (theft of service); see ChrirtiMsen v. Srclte,575 S.W.2d 42 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Attorney General Opinion JM-820 (1987)) Whether the municipal and justice courts havejurisdiction of prosecution for theft cases involving the passing of a bad check depends on the value of the
*Sectioo 1223 of the Penal Code was amended by Housc Bii 407 of the 72d Legislature to iocreasc.the amount ofthe he for a Class C misdemeanor from Szoo. This change in the amouot of the fine for a misdemeanor applies only for an offense committed 0x1 or after the effective date of the act. How Bii 407,sups, PP1.12. Further, ao offense is committed before tbe effective date of the act ifany element ofthe offense occursbefore the effectivedate. Id. 0 12,at 682. %Veunderstand your use ofthe term ‘propert)r to not inc.ludemoney, although such isnot the case in the theft chapter of the Penal Code. See Penal Code 031.01(6)(C) (‘[p]ropcw may bc “a document, including money, that represents or embodies anytbiog ofvalue”).

‘we note that ooe bad check traosactioo may involve a violation of section 32.41, as well as section 31.03or 31.04ofthe Pcoal Code as, for -pie, when a bad check is cxhngcd for cash. See Attorney General Opinion JM-820 (where both offenses arise from one transaction, double jeopardy pro&ions oftbe state and federal coostitutions do not bar the trial of an accused for both issuance of a bad cheek and theft); see also Penal Code P31.01(6)(C) (“[p]roperty,”includes money). We further note that an offense under s&ion 32.41ofthe Penal Code is not a her included offense of a scetion 31.03or 31.04offeose. Peoal Code 032.41(g). Sinceyou do not raise any questions pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Corpus Christi Municipal Court in such situations, we will not address them at this time.

p. 410Honorable Eddie Cavazos -Page 3 (DM-82)

property involved. Theft ofproperty or services valued at less than $20is generally a Class C misdemeanor. See Penal Code 8s 31.03(e)(l) (making theft of property valued at less than $20 a Class C misdemeanor, except where actor is a public servant), 31.04(e)(l) (Class C misdemeanor if value of service stolen is less than $20).Thejustice and municipal courts would, therefore, have concurrent jurisdiction oftheft cases involvingproperty or servicesvalued at $19.99or less. SUMMARY The Corpus Christi Municipal Court has jurisdiction over theft cases involving the issuance of a check when the property or services involved isvalued at lessthan $20.

DAN -MORALES Attorney General ofTexas WJLLPRYOR Fit Assistant Attorney General MARY KELLER Deputy Assistant Attorney General JUDGE ZOLLJE STEAKLEY (Ret) Special Assistant Attorney General RENEAHICKS Special Assistant Attorney General MADELEINE B.JOHNSON Chair, Opinion Committee Prepared by Ray H. Guajardo Assistant Attorney General

P. 411