OFFICE OF THE A-ITORNEY GENERAL OF T’EXAS AUSTIN ~c.yllcll ,namn*manIL

son. see Balloy xumphrsy COUlty AttOrIl@~ Crookatt, Tt3XR8
Deai'SITI

place of the c'epvfetsd man$ PO? desire our optnlon as to whether the aontiction or tbe trustee resulted in his rebe Oould continue to should be employed

srt&b 5908, Revised Cl011 Statutes, reada an

~+~L~'convlctlons by a petit jury of any chti3tjwfrieers for any felony, or ror any mls- 

# aedqor

involving of

## ricsiaf.mlsoonduOt, shall work

# da---ii.mtmte r~~0val rr0m

## 0rriae or the ofrloer 80 convicted. Each euoh jud@mnt of conviction ehnll embody within It an orner removing such

## 0frioar.”
The aborn statute speaks only Of OonYlOtlo&3 by petit jurlos,perhaps bsoausewhen 5.t beoam law themHoa* Joe Bailey Humphrey, pago 3.

oould be no oonviotlon of a rmlony rxoept upon a ~~rtlolrloa, C. C. p., &r glring to the defendant 

### therL trid, 

### ht to walr* a jury ina felonyoas8leesthan oapltal,upona plea of guilty and with the 

### oowent or the Distriot Attorney and of the Court wan not snaoteduntil 1931., we are wro inolined to thk, howevef, that in pasring Arti 3963,with itr 

### requirementor a jury oonriotlon, the Leglr&turr had In mind 88otlon U4, oi ArtlOlt. 3, of the State Constitution, seadine 80

## r0uom:

*Couiity 

## mag88, oounty attorneys, olrrks or the Dietriotand 

### county Courts, juetloee

### or the peaoe, oonstables, 

### and other countyoifloers,may beremovedby 

### the Judgesor theDirtrlot Courts ror inoanpetuioy, 

## 0rfi0id daoonduot, habitual cImnkenno8s, or other oausrs defined by law, upon the oauae 

### thererorbeset 

### forth inwrftlng 

### and the finding or 

### its truth by a jury.” From the opinion of the Supreme Court in Grimes vs.
‘l’hoclfi8, 104 S.Yi. 1058, lo& Tex. 36, we quotes

“It is contended that right to the ofrloe is seoured by the Constitution and that it o ’an only be taken away, elthcr temporarily or permanently, by removal of the incumbent by the distrlot judge, for oauses set rorth in writing and found by a jury to be true us prosoribed by section 84.

“It is well established by tho authorities that under a Lonstitutlon like this there 18 no power in the Legislature to authorize a reno~6.l so provided ror otherwise then in the presorlbed mode, and if a temporary suspension 

## 0r the ofricer, during the psndenoy or valid proooedln@ to remove and as t;n incident of such procoedlngs were equivalent to a removal, the argument would be complete. Ke thus state 

## the oharaoter Or the suspension as temporary and Incidental to the trial 

## or a legal and valid proaeedlng to remove beoause that is all that exists in this oase, as well as for the reason thet we do not doubt that there might be attempts at suspensions 8s well as at removals that would violate the COEstitutlon.’. 

# ---” 74

m state OXrd. Fiah Vs. O'bWaXS, COtUltyJudge et al, 74 f3.N.(2) 146, aotlonwas to remove a county judge iSa the fOUS OOUUty 0013~&3dOt~6 Ot DiPrmitCOIi$Lty.ThO trial wae to a jury But the court lnatructrd a rrrdiot ror the defendants. Ymnnthe o$inlon of Judge Smith o? the San Antonio Court of Civil qppsalr we quote:

@Tn his firat, ~eOond, 

### third, and fourth proposltlonsrelator oontenda 

### thatunder the constitutionalprovision here lmoked 

### a jury alone aa~ pas8 upon the lseue or whether an 0frioial is guilty or lnnooent of improperaota oharged against him in a ease of this oharaoter, and that therefore the 

### trialJudgeerred in directing a veralot ior appellees, The proposition 1s correot, In a general eonse, in that no offlolalmay be rkmored from

## orrice ror sots or inconptsncy or mieoonduct unless ma until he has been found guilty or such &iota,by a jury of hla peers; a district Juilge has no power to remove an olflalal in the absenos of such jury flndix..R

x defendant ln a felony case dotis not have the un- ~unllfled right to waive a jury. Eiecan do 80 in c;ses less than oopltal with the consent and upprovo]. of the distrlot uttorney ana district J’ud~e. klere such consent 

## aAdz?provu1 is given and as CIconooquenco thereor no convlotlon by a petit jury is hnd, we are constrained to hold that .rtlole 5S68 does not apply. our opinion follows that the trustee in i;uestlon WCSnot removed by this conviction and continues to hold his oftloo. our o~lnion x0. o-1521 is Umitea ao

## COraiIUjly~

pours

## rsry truly