DAN MORALES 

ATTORSEY GENERAL 

@ffice of t&z Rlttornep 

.&date of llCexae 

December 20, 1993 

@enera 

Ms. LaVonne Garland 

Interim Director 

Texas Board of Architectural Examiners 

8213 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 107 

Austin, Texas 78758-7589 

Opinion No. DM-277 

Re: Whether complaints under V.T.C.S. 

article 2494 section 13, may be tried in 

justice courts as class C misdemeanors (RQ-2 15) 

Dear Ms. Garland: 

Your predecessor requested our opinion concerning the e.tTect of the 1991 

amendment to section 12.23 of the Penal Code upon V.T.C.S. article 249a, section 13. 

The 1991 amendment to section 12.23 raised the maximum tine for a class C misdemeanor 

from $200 to S5OO.t Section 13 defines the unauthorized practice of architecture as a 

misdemeanor punishable by a tine ranging from $250 to $l,000.2 

Your predecessor asked: 

Pursuant to [the 1991 amendment] increasing the fine amounts 

for Class C misdemeanors to Five Hundred Dollars (SSOO.OO), may 

complaints tiled under Article 2494 Texas Revised Civil Statutes 

Annotated, regarding non-registrant violations be tried in Justice 

Courts as Class C misdemeanors? 

There are two parts to this question: (1) may complaints filed under article 249a be tried 

aa class C misdemeanors? and (2) may complaints under article 249a be filed and tried in 

justice court? 

We apply the following considerations in answering the first part of the question. 

Section 1.03 of the Penal Code provides in part: “[T]he punishment affixed to an offense 

1kaa1 Code section 12.23 now reads: “An individual adjudged guilty of a Class C mibmeanor 

shall be pmdshcd by a fine not to exceed SSOO.” 

?ktion 13 of article 249a, V.T.C.S., provides in part: “(a) If any person. shall, for a fee or 

other direct compensation, pmwe the practice of the profession of architechue in this State as herein 

defined,. without first having complied with the provisions of this Act, such person shall be deemed 

guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than Two Hundred Fifty 

Dollma ($250.00) and not more than One Thousand Dollars (Sl,OOO.OO) for each offense.” 
Ms. LaVonne Garland - Page 2 (DM-277) 

defined outside this code shall be applicable unless the punishment is classiied in 

accordance with this code.” Penal Code $1.03(b). The offense defined in section 13 is 

not an offense defined in the Penal Code. Furthermore, article 249a does not classify a 

violation of section 13 as a class C misdemeanor. 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the class C misdemeanor fine 

limitation set forth in section 12.23 of the Penal Code has no bearing on the range of fines 

established in section 13 of article 249a, V.T.C.S. Violations of article 249a, section 13, 

may not be tried as class C misdemeanors. 

Regarding the second part of the question, the Texas Constitution grants 

jurisdiction to the justice courts as follows: 

Sec. 19. Justice of the peace courts shall have original 

jurisdiction in criminal matters of misakmecmor cases punishable by 

fine only, exclusive jurisdiction in civil matters where the amount in 

controversy is two hundred dollars or less, and such other 

jurisdiction as may be provided by law. 

Tex. Const. art. V, 8 19 (emphasis added). The punishment provided in article 249a, 

section 13, is a fine only. Therefore, it appears that the justice court has original 

jurisdiction of violations of article 249a, section 13, by virtue of section 19 of article V of 

the constitution. 

On the other hand, article 4.11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure purports to 

establish the following monetary limitation on the criminal jurisdiction of the justice 

courts: “Justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction in criminal cases where the tine to be 

imposed may not exceed five hundred dollars.” Unlike the constitutional provision, article 

4.11 does not expressly lit justice-court jurisdiction to criminal cases punishable “by fine 

only” and therefore might be construed literally as a grant of additional jurisdiction of 

crimmal cases punishable by fine and some other penalty rather than as a limitation on the 

justice court’s constitutional, fine-only jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the provision’s statutory 

predecessor, which also lacked such an express limitation, was construed in the case of Ex 

parte Morris, 325 S.W.2d 386, 388 (Tex. Grim. App. 1959), as impliedly incorporating 

the fine-only jurisdictional limitation by its codification from an even earlier statute, which 

did contain the express limitation. AccordExparte Howard, 347 S.W.2d 721 (Tex. Grim. 

App. 1961). We therefore construe the current article 4.11 as a purported statutory 

limitation of jurisdiction to criminal cases punishable by a fine only in the the maximum 

amount of $500 or less. This construction of article 4.11, contrary to the constitutional 

grant of jurisdiction, would deny the justice courts jurisdiction over prosecutions under 

article 2494 section 13, because the tine under section 13 may exceed $500. 

p. 1453 
Ms. LaVonne Garland - Page 3 (DM-277) 

The inconsistency between section 19 of article V of the Texas Constitution and 

article 4.11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arose in 1985, when the constitutional 

provision was amended. See SIR. 14, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., 5 7, at 3359. Before the 

constitutional amendment, both provisions contained a $200 limitation on the criminal 

jurisdiction of the justice courts. Compare Tex. Const. art V, Q 19, us umenakd by 

H.J.R. 37, Acts 1977, 65th Leg., $ 1, at 3372 (prior version of article V, section 19: 

“Justices of the peace shah have jurisdiction in criminal matters of ah cases where the 

penalty or fine to be imposed by law may not be more than for two hundred dollars”) with 

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., ch. 722, $ 1, at 331 (prior version of article 4.11: “Justices of the 

peace shah have jurisdiction in crimimd cases where the fine to be imposed by law may not 

exceed two hundred dollars”); cf: S.J.R. 14, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., § 7, at 3359 (limitation 

struck out in resolution to amend constitution). Article 4.11 was amended to its current 

form in 1991. See Acts 1991, 72d Leg., ch. 108, 5 4.3 We have found nothing in the 

legislative history of the 1991 amendment to shed light on the legislative intent, if any, in 

regard to the conflict between the statute and the constitutional provision. 

After due consideration, we conclude that the $500 limitation in article 4.11 of the 

Code of Criminal Procedure is unconstitutional because it would deprive the justice courts 

of some of their jurisdiction. This conclusion is based on the principle that the legislature 

can add to, but it cannot take away from, the jurisdiction granted to the district wurts and 

inferior wurts in the constitution. 

This principle has been applied in several cases involving the jurisdiction of the 

district wmts. Thus, in Reosonover v. Reasonover, 58 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. 1933), the court 

held unwnstitutional a statute that purported to withhold from a certain district court 

jurisdiction of all causes for divorce and adjudication of property rights related thereto and 

to confer exclusive jurisdiction of those causes to a criminal district court. The supreme 

court decided that the statutory attempt to oust the district wurt of such jurisdiction 

violated section 8 of article V of the wnstitution, which granted the district court “original 

jurisdiction ‘of all cases of divorce.‘” Id. at 818 (quoting Tex. Const. art. V, $8 (1891)). 

The court noted the language in the 1891 amendment to section 1 of article V of the 

wnstitution, providing that the legislature “‘may conform the’ jurisdiction of the district 

and other inferior courts [Ito’” the jurisdiction prescribed for other wurts that it 

establishes, id., and construed the provision to mean that the legislature could make the 

district wurt’s jurisdiction concurrent with that of any statutory court but could not 

deprive the district court of its constitutional jurisdiction: 

3House Bill 407 of the 72d Legislatu~, which amended article 4.11, also amended, inter ah, 

seaion 12.23 of the Penal Code to increase theclassCmisdemcanorfinemaximumfromS200to'S500. 

Acts 1991,72d Leg., ch. 108, 8 1, at 681. 

p. 1454 
Ms. LaVonne Garland - Page 4 (DM-277) 

The amendment to section 1, article 5, adopted in 1891, does 

not purport to take away from the district court, or to authorize the 

Legislature to take away from it, its constitutional jurisdiction. It 

does authorize the Legislature to take from it the exclusive nature of 

its jurisdiction over the subjects mentioned in section 8, article 5, and 

permits the Legislature to give jurisdiction over them also to other 

courts. 

Id. at 819; see Lord v. Clgvton, 352 S.W.2d 718, 721-22 (Tex. 1962) (adhering to 

Reasonover holding); see also Jordan v. Crudgiqton, 231 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Tex. 1950) 

(observing that statute creating court of domestic relations did “not undertake to divest 

any court of its wnstitutional jurisdiction and vest same exclusively in the wurt of 

domestic relations”). 

The holding of Reasonover applies with equal force to the justice courts because 

section 1 of article V of the constitution applies by its express terms to courts inferior to 

the district court. That provision still reads, in pertinent part: “The Legislature may 

establish such other courts as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and 

organixation thereof, and may conform the jurisdiction of the district and other inferior 

courts thereto.” Tex. Const. art. V, 8 1 (emphasis added). 

In Attorney General Opinion TM-1089 (1989) we decided that the 1985 

amendment to section 19 of article V of the constitution controlled over the $200 

jurisdictional limitation then contained in article 4.11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

We also decided in that opinion that the constitutional amendment’s “provision for justice 

court jurisdiction over ‘misdemeanor cases punishable by fine only’ does not require further 

legislative action to be given effect.” Attorney General Opinion JM-1089 at 2. We here 

reaflirm that opinion4 and add that the 1991 amendment to article 4.11 is unconstitutional 

and void to the extent it purports to increase the limitation to $500.5 Therefore, we 

conclude that complaints under article 249a may be filed and tried in justice wurt. 

41~ L*ter Opinion No. 92-23 (1992) this 0ffiice wntmdkted the holding 0f Atto cheral 

Opinion JM-1089 that the provision of justice court jurisdiction of “misdemeanor cam punishable by fine 

only” contained in section 19 of article V is self-enacting. Letter Opinion No. 92-23 is overrated. 

‘Lest there be wnfusion, we emphaske that this opinion has no application to the jurisdiction of 

the wmts over class A, B, and C misdemeanors as those offenses are defined, respectively, in Penal Code 

sections 12.2 1 through 12.23. Regar&ss of whether or not the $500 limitation in article 4.11 of the Code 

of Crimiaal Prowlure is valid, the justice courts have jurisdiction, Tex. Const. art. V, 8 19, over class C 

misdemeanors because those offenses are punishable only by a fine of a maximum amount not exceeding 

$500. Penal Code 5 12.23. Class A and B misdemeanors are punishable by fine or confinement in jail, or 

both (that is, not by fine only). Id. @ 12.21 - .22. 

p. 1455 
Ms. LaVonne Garland - Page 5 (DM-277) 

SUMMARY 

The $500 maximum fine limitation for class C misdemeanors set 

forth in section 12.23 of the Penal Code does not apply to the 

misdemeanor of unauthorized practice of architecture defined in 

V.T.C.S. article 249a, section 13, which sets punishment as a tine 

ranging from $250 to $1,000. The $500 limitation on the criminal 

jurisdiction of justice courts contained in article 4.11 of the Code of 

Criminal Procedure is void for violation of section 19 of article V of 

the Texas Constitution, which contains no maximum liit on that 

wurt’s jurisdiction over fine-only misdemeanors. Article V, section 

19, does not require legislative implementation; therefore, complaints 

under article 249a may be filed and tried in justice wurt. Letter 

Opinion No. 92-23 (1992) is overruled. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

WILL PRYOR 

Fist Assistant Attorney General 

JORGE VEGA 

Deputy Attorney General for Litigation 

RBNEA HICKS 

State Solicitor 

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by James B. Pinson 

Assistant Attorney General