DAN MORALES 

Al-rORNEY GENERAL 

QBffice of tip Bttotnep 65eneral 

#Mate of &exae 

July 8.1992 

Honorable Mike Driscog 

Harris County Attorney 

1001 Preston, suite 634 

Houston, Texas 77002-1891 

Opinion No. DM-139 

Re: Whether a justice of the peace is 

required to maintain a hard copy of the 

crimbml docket if he or she has chosen to 

maintain such records electronically (RQ-66) 

Dear Mr. Driscolh 

Article 45.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires justices of the 

peace and municipal court judges to maintain a docket of criminal proceedings in 

their respective courts and authorizes the use of electronic data processing 

equipment to perform this function: 

The information in the docket may be processed and stored 

by the use of electronic data processing equipment, at the 

discretion of the justice of the peace or the municipal court 

judge. 

Code Crim. Proc. art. 4513(b). You ask whether a justice of the peace who elects to 

process and store the court’s criminal docket electronically is required to maintain a 

printed copy of the docket. 

A docket is generally described as a formal record containing brief entries of 

the proceedings in a court of justice. BLACK’LAW S DIC~ONARY 431(5tb ed. 1979). 

A docket entry has been characterized as a memorandum made for the convenience 

of a trial court and its staff. See Energo Int’l Co+ v. Modem Indw. Hearing, 722 

S.W.2d 149 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1986, no writ); Gainesville Gil & Gus Co. v. Fam 

Credi Bank of Ti, 795 S.W.2d 826 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1990, no writ).’ Article 

bhhough a docket entry constitute part of the court record, Petroleum Equip. Fin Cap v. 

Fim Nat? Bank of Fan Worth, 622 S.W2d I52 (Tu. App.-Fort Worth 1981, wit rc.Pd n.r.c.), it does 

not coostitutc part of the judgment in a particular case. Goinmik CJif & Gus, 795 S.WZd 826. A 

docket entry may supply facts in certain situations, but it carm~ be used to contradict or prevail over 

the final judicial order. N-S-W Corp. Y. SncN, 561 SW2.d 7% (Tu. 1977). Thus, when a docket entry 

p. 717 
Honorab1ehGkeDriscol.l - Page 2 (DM-139) 

45.13 provides that a justice of the peace or municipal corn?? judge shall enter into 

the docket “the pmceu%q in each trial had before him,” including the follow@ 

infolmatioIr 

1. l%e style of the actim 

2 The nature of the offense charged, 

3. The date the warrantwasissuedandtheretummade 

thereon; 

4. ‘f’be time when the examinationortrialwashad,andifa 

trial, whether it was by a jury or by himself; 

5. The verdict of the jmy, if any; 

6. The judgment and sentence of the court; 

7. Motion for new w if any, and the decision thereon; 

8. Ifanappealwastake~and 

9. The time when, and the manner in which, the jadgment 

and sentenoe was enforced. 

Code Cd. Pm. art. 45.13(a). 

We lind no express statutory requirement that the electronically stored 

&minal docket of a justice court be simultaneously maintained on printed media, 

and we are aware of no principle of constitutional law or common law which would 

require creation of a “hard copy” of the docket under these cirau~.~tances. Article 

45.U fails to stipulate whether a printed copy must be kept. 

Subpan (b) of article 45.13 was enacted in 1989. Acts 1989,71st Leg., ch. 

499, 0 1, at 1684-85. Prior to that time, article 45.U imposed no specific 

p. 718 
Honorable h4ike Driscoll - Page 3 (DM-139) 

requirement regarding the medium in which the docket was maintained. 

Historically, however, it was generally understood that the docket was a single 

record, printed and bound, containing the entries of the pmcced@p in the court. 

See former Tu R. Civ. P. 26 (Vernon 1979) (providing that court cl& shall “keep 

a court docket in a well bound book”); BUCK’S LAW DICIIONARY 431 (defining 

“docket” to mean, inter &a, “[a] book containing an entry in brief of all the 

important acts done in court in the conduct of each case”). The 1989 addition of 

subpart (b) of article 45.U was obviously intended to oEer justices of the peace the 

advantages of modem technology, a trend which is evident in other areas of axut 

administration. See infm note 2. 

We note that the bill adding subpart (b) also repealed article 45.14 of the 

Code of CXminal Procedure, which previously provided: 

At each term of the district court, each justice of the peace 

shall, on the first day of the term of said amrt for their county, 

fde with the clerk of said court a certified transcript of the 

. docket kept by such justice, of all cnminal cases examined or 

tried before him since the last term of such district Court; and 

such clerk shall immediately deliver such transcript to the 

foreman of the grand jury. 

Acts 1965,59th Leg., cb. 722, at 317 (formerly Code Qim. Proc. art. 45.14 repealed 

by Acts 1989,71st kg., ch. 499.0 2). We think the repeal of article 45.14 indicates 

general legislative intent to move away from printed or paper media to record the 

proceed@ of justice courts. It would be consistent with that general intent to 

conclude that justices of the peace are not required to simultan~usly maintain hard 

copies of their electronically stored &minal dockets.2 

We note other statutes that are relevant to your inquiry. The court 

Administration Act places supervisory and administrative control over the judicial 

branch of state government in the Supreme Court of Texas. Gov’t Code 0 74.021. 

p. 719 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 4 (DM-139) 

The court is authorized to adopt rules of administration for the court system 

including rules relating to a uniform dockets policy. Id 0 74.024(c)(7). The rules 

remain in effect unless and until disapproved by the legislature. Id 0 74.U24(d). To 

date, the supreme court has not adopted formal rules goveming the maintenance of 

dockets injustice courts.3 

In addition, the Local Govemment Records Act, chapters 201 to 2435 of the 

Load Government Code, authoriaes the electronic storage of local government 

record data ‘in addition to or inrteed of soura documents in paper or other media, 

subject to the requirements of this chapter and rules adopted under it.” Local Gov’t 

Code 0 205.002 (emphasis added). The State Library and Archives Commission is 

responsible for adopting rules governing the electronic storage of local government 

recor& including standards and procedures regarding the generation of backup or 

preservation copies of electronically stored records and public access to such 

records. See id 0 205.W3. The offia of the justice of the peace and its records are 

subject to the act. Id 00 201.003(7) (“local government” includes all district and 

precinct of&es of a county), 201.003(8) (“local government record” includes, inter 

rrlirr, any document or electronic medium created or received by a local government 

or any of its offiars); see u&o Attorney General Opinion JM-1224 (1990) (act 

applies to electronic storage of county, district, and precinct records by county data 

processing department). The State Library and Archives Commission has to date 

not adopted formal rules governing the maintenance of the crimhml dockets of 

justia coum 

Accordingly, we conclude that the crimmal docket in a justice court may be 

maintained electronically in addition to or in lieu of hard copy originals. Code 

Grim. Rot art. 45X+@); Local Wt Code 0 2QS.001. Whether the docket is kept 

on paper or maintained electronically, appropriate provisions must be made to 

implement public rights of impection. See Gov’t Code 0 27.004(a); Open Records 

Decision No. 25 (1974). 

p. 720 
Honorable Mike mll - Page 5 (DM-139) 

Ajustiaofthepeaamaymaintaintbecrimhaldocketin 

the justia court elef3ronically in addition to or in lieu of printed 

paper media The justia is not required to simultaneously 

maintain printed paper copies of the electronically stored 

docket. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

WILL PRYOR 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARYKELLER 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

RENEAHICRS 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Steve Arag6n 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 721