TEXEATTOWNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 3-eHonorable Bruce L. Miller Opinion NO. (c-648) 

County Attorney 

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 

following questions: 

When a person Is placed on probation 

In accordance with the terms of the 

Misdemeanor Probation Law of 1966, 

Article 42.13, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1966, may the court cause 

the collection of the fine and costs 

assessed against the defendant prior 

to the time the probation Is revoked. 

When a person,is place~d upon probation in accordance with the terms 

of Article 42.13 may the court collect 

monthly payments from said person 

for the costs of probation. 

Your first question is answered in the affirmative 

and a court, after placing a defendant on probation, in . 

accordance with 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 said probation. It 

is first noted 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 said probation. In other words, 

he must ask for it. By so doing, said person certainly 

impliedly agrees to accept at least those terms of probation ordered by the court which are in accord with Section 

5 of 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 requesting probation agrees to abide by the 

terms of the probation 2s ordered by the COLD% and authorized 

by Article 42,13, a cour,t may legally cause the collection 

of any fine prior to revocation of said probation. It is 

also our opinion that the court may require the collection 

of coats prior to the revocation of said probation. 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 shall be considered final 

disposition of the case for the purpose of determining when 

fees are payable to any officer means that proper 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 find no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure o? any 

other statute permitting costs of probation to be assessed 

e,re not limit,ed to those set out in Article Li2.13 Section 

r 2" However, since we are unable to find any authority for 

a court to assess such costs against defendant. under any 

circumstances, it is our opinion .that such costs of probation may 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 that provided by the 

Legislature. 

------- S UMS4AR.Y 

After placing a defendant on probation in 

accordance with Article 42-13, C.C.P., the 

court may legally cause the collection of 

any fine and costs prior to revocation of 

such probation. 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 

c 
I - 

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,