## TEXEATTOWNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 3-eHonorable Bruce L. Miller OpinionNO. 

## (c-648) CountyAttorney Deaf Smith County Re: Assessment of fine, court Hereford, Texas costs, and costs of probation under the Misdemeanor Dear Mr. Miller: Probation Law of 

## 1966.

In an opinion request of this office you pose the followingquestions: When a person Is placed on probation In accordancewith the terms of the Misdemeanor Probation Law of 

## 1966, Article 42.13, Code of CriminalProcedure,

## 1966,

may the court cause the collectionof the fine and costs assessed against the defendantprior to the time the probation Is revoked. When a person,isplace~d upon probation in accordancewith the terms of Article 42.13may the court collect monthly payments from saidperson for the costs of probation.
Your first question is answered in the affirmative and a court, after placing a defendanton probation, in

. accordancewith the terms of Article 42.13,may legally cause the collection of such fine and costs as the court may order prior to the revocation, if any, of saidprobation. It is firstnoted that before any person may be granted a probation under the terms of this act, he must first apply in writing to the court for saidprobation. In other words, he must ask for it. By so doing, saidperson certainly impliedlyagrees to accept at least those terms of probation ordered by the courtwhich are in accordwith Section 

## 5of Article 42.13. One of those terms is a6 follows:
"("1 .The terms fif probation 7 must'lnclude, but aYe not limiter to the requirements that a probationer:

. 

## -3144-Honorable Bruce L. Miller,page 2 (c-

## 648)
(8)Pay his fine, if the court so order-e

and, if c,ne

be assessed, in one or several sums, a 1 e" It is our opinicn, therefore, that since the defendant who is requestingprobation agrees to abideby the terms of the probation 2s orderedby the COLD% and authorized by Article 42,13, a cour,t may legally cause the collection of any fineprior to revocationof saidprobation. It is also our opinion that the courtmay require the collection of coatsprior to the revocationof saidprobation. In Ex Parte Sethers, 209 S.W. 2d 

## 358(Tex. Crim.

## 1948) the Probation and Parole Law which required that the placing of the defendant on probation shallbe considered final dispositionof the case for the purpose of determiningwhen fees are payable to any officermeans thatproper court costs must be paid before a defendant can be released on probation after conviction. We of course realize that the statutes are,notidentical,but we believe that the same reasons apply here as it did in Ex Parte Sethers.

Your second question is answered in the negative. We findno provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure o? any other statutepermitting costs of probation to be assessed e,re not limit,ed

to those set out in Article Li2.13 Section r 2" However, sincewe are unable to find any authority for a court to assess such costs against defendant. under any circumstances, it is our opinion .thatsuch costs of probationmay not be assessed against a defendant. This would, in effect, allow a court to increase the penalty fcr a violation of the law, to an amount greater than thatprovided by the Legislature. S UMS4AR.Y ------- After placing a defendant on probation in accordancewith Article 42-13, C.C.P., the courtmay legally cause the collectionof any fine and costsprior to revocationof suchprobation. Under these same circumstances, a court may not legally collect monthly payments from said defendant to cover the costs of probation.
Yours very truly, WAGGONER CARR Attorney General of Texas

cI -

Honorable Bruce L. Miller, page 

## 3 (c-648)

BY K 11 0 A%.s&nE'Attorney General SK/lb APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman Lonny Zwlener Robert E. Owen w. 0. ShUliz Thomas Mack APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: T. B. Wright,