- 

## THEA~TORNEYGENERAI.

,- September 21,

## 1948

Bon. J. Q. Knight CountyAttorney Bee County Beeville, Texas Opinion lo. V-686
Re: Authority of the Countg Judge or CommlsslOnem' Court to remit a fine paid upon being adjudgedguilty of a misdemeanor.
Dear Sir:
Your request for our opinion on the above subjectmatter is, in part, as follows:

"OnAugust 17, 1948, a defendantwas ,adjudgedguilty of a misdemeanor offense by the County Court of Bee County,and was naseeseda fine of $100.00 and costs. Ro ii&Ice of appealwas given and no motion for new trial was made. The fine and costs were paid by the defendant on August 17, 

## 1948. Todayhe seeks the remlsslon of the fine. a . "The opinfon of your officerelative to the authority of the CountyJudge or the CommlsslonersCourt t$ remit the fine in question Is requested.
In the.case of Hiram Luckey v. The State, 14 Tex. 400, it was held that the District Court did not have the power to remit any part of the fine or costs in a criminal case. %iequote the following:

*Itwas very properly so orderedby the court in this case,and there is no error In the judgment of which the appel- * lant can complain. But the courthad no authority to remit any part of the fine and costs, and of this the State very justly complains. After convictipnana assessment of the fine by the jurr the courthas no power to remit thepunish-Hon. J. G. Knight, page 2 (V-686)

ment Imposed, That is the exercise of the pardoningpower which appertains exclusivelyto the Rxeoutlve. leitherhas the court the power to remit costs. Those are matters of private right which neither the court nor any one else on behalf of the State can releasewithout the consent of those to whom they are due. The statute, though itsmeaning Is not very clearly express&, was evidently internlea to empower the court to fix such a limit to the term of imprisonmentas the court, in its dlscretion,might deem proper upon satisfactory.proofof the inability of the party to pay the fine and costs,but not to empower the court to remit any portion of either the fine or costs. (Rart.Dig. art. 401, Dixon v. The State, 2 Tex. R., 481.) The court therefore erred in Its judgmentremittlqg a portion of the fine and costs,

. a ,. It was furtherheld in ex parte Thomas, 108 Tex. Crlm.Rep. 653, 2 S.W.(2d) 270, that the Commissioners' Court did not have the power to remit fines. We quote the following:

11 * 0 e the legal question involved iswhether the order remitting the fine was within the jurlsdlctlonof,the commissloners" court.
"Inarticle 4, Sec. 11 of the Constitutionof Texas, the pardoningpower Is vested in the Governor in the following terms:
"'Inall criminal cases, except treason and Impeachment,he shallhave power after conviction,to grant reprieves, commutations of pynishment and pardons, ana under such rules as the Legislaturemay prescribe,he shallhave power to remit fines and forfeitures.'

. 'Basedon'the constitutio 9"1 provision mentioned, the Legislature clec are& In article 952,,Cocle

Cr. PPOC. 1925, that the Governor mayremit fines. So far as we areHon.

.-

that aware, the power to relieve one convicted of a penal offense of a,fine assessed againsthim isvested alone In the,Governor. This view is emphasizedby the precedents in this state. See,Snot¶grass v; State, 67 Tex. Cr. R..615, 150 S.W. 162, 41 L.R.A. (N-S.)1144;'Rx Tex. Cr. R. 587, 162 S.W. gf"$ Rice, 72

In view of the foregoing it is our opinion neither the CountsJudge nor the Commissioners' Courthas the power or-authorityto remit a fine by a defenclant

after conviction In a misdemeanor

.- J. G. Knight, page 3 (w-686)

JR:mw SUMMaRY

Neither the CountyJudge nor the Commissioners' Courthas.the power to remit a finepaid by a defendant after conviction In a misdemeanor case. Blram Luckey v. The State, 14 Tex. 400, Ex parte Thomas, 2 S.W. (26)270. paid case.

Yours very truly, ATTORNEYGERERAL OF TEXAS

John Reeves Assistant

APPROVED:

RNEYGENERAL