DAN MORALES 

ATTORNEY CENERAL 

QBffice of tfy !ZWmep &nerd 

&ate of ?aexae 

January 30,1992 

Honorable Eddie Cavaxos 

chairman 

Budget and Oversight Committee 

P. 0. Box 2910 

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 a bad check, specifically in a situation in which a bad 

check is passed in exchange for property or services, as distinguished from a 

situation in which a bad check is issued solely for payment of money. We will begin 

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 9 29.002. The jurisdictional limits of the 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 of a precinct in which the municipality is located in 

all criminal cases arising under state law that: 

(1) arise within the territorial limits of the 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, 0 7, at 682, cffcetin Scptcmbcr l, 1991. Before this amendment, the amount of the fme 

for municipal court jurisdiction of c&ii cass was SXIO. 

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

See also Code Crim. Proc. art. 4.12 (stating same jurisdictional limitations). 

Violation of section 32.41 of the Penal Code, the issuance of a bad check for 

payment of money, is a Class C misdemeanor. Penal Code 5 32.41(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 and justice 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 of money, when the offense is committed within the territorial limits of the 

municipality. See Attorney General Opinion V-104 (1947). 

You ask whether the municipal court has jurisdiction over cases involving the 

issuance of a 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 $5 31.03 (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 have jurisdiction 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 of the 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, PP 1.12. Further, ao offense is committed before tbe effective date of the 

act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date. Id. 0 12, at 682. 

%Ve understand your use of the term ‘propert)r to not inc.lude money, although such is not the 

case in the theft chapter of the Penal Code. See Penal Code 0 31.01(6)(C) (‘[p]ropcw may bc “a 

document, including money, that represents or embodies anytbiog of value”). 

‘we note that ooe bad check traosactioo may involve a violation of section 32.41, as well as 

section 31.03 or 31.04 of the 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 of tbe 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 P 31.01(6)(C) (“[p]roperty,” includes money). We further 

note that an offense under s&ion 32.41 of the Penal Code is not a her included offense of a scetion 

31.03 or 31.04 offeose. Peoal Code 0 32.41(g). Since you 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. 410 
Honorable Eddie Cavazos - Page 3 (DM-82) 

property involved. Theft of property or services valued at less than $20 is 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). The justice and municipal courts would, therefore, have concurrent jurisdiction 

of theft cases involving property or services valued at $19.99 or less. 

SUMMARY 

The Corpus Christi Municipal Court has jurisdiction over 

theft cases involving the issuance of a check when the property 

or services involved is valued at less than $20. 

DAN -MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

WJLL PRYOR 

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