THE ORNEY GENES 

- ~S%cey S. Wslker 

County Attorney 

Walker County 

Huntsville, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

This Opinion 

Modifies Opinion 

# O-1981 

Attention: Robert B. Smither 

Opinion No. O-4680 

Re: Under the facts submitted IS the 

sheriff of Walker County entitled 

to collect his fees for the ~ i 

transportation of defendant, 

under Article 567-b, Section 5, 

Vernon's Annotated Penal Code, 

from the State or if the defendant 

should be required to remain in 

the county jail until he has 

satisfied such costs? 

Your letter of June 20, 1942, requesting the opinion of this department 

on the above stated question reads as follows: 

"In Re: State vs. Willian B. Palmer, 

CountyCo~t,,Walker County, 

Texae 

"In the above case the defendant has pleaded guilty:,to 

the offense of passing a hot check in the amount of 

$10.00 and his punishment assessed at one day in 

jail and costs of Court. The defendant was located 

at New Braunfels; Texas; and held there for the 

sheriff of Walker County, Texas, who went after the 

defendant and transported him to his county. 

"The question is whether the sheriff of Walker County 

Is entitled to collect his fees for the transportation 

of the defendant under Article 567-b, Section 5 fran 

the State or if the defendant should be required to 

remain in the County Jail until he has satisfied such 

costs? 

"We are unable to find any cases where this question 

has been construed by the Courts. 
Eon. Dewey S. Walker, Att’n: Robert B. Smither, Page # 2 O-4680 

“It eppears the only method by which the sheriff could 

collect his fees from the State would be by the district 

court approving an account for the same as provided in 

Article 1030 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, 

in view of Article 1019 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 

it appears likely the district court would not be authorized 

to approve the sheriff’s account and the defenr’ant would 

be required to remain in the county jail until all costs 

were satisfied. 

“E x parte Shaffer, 92 S. W. 2d 250; Overstreet vs. State, 

15 5. W. 2d 1039.” 

In opinion No. O-1981, this department held, among other things, that: 

” 

. * . Officers issuing and serving process in misdemeanor 

cases arising under Article 567b of the Penal Code are 

entitled to such fees ~8s they would be in any other miademeanor case . . . s 

” 

. * . * 

where a defendant is convicted of a misdemeanor offense 

under the above mentioned article and is unable to pay 

his Pine and costs and satisfies the ssme working on public 

works or remaining in jail as provided by Articles 785-797, 

inclusive, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the officers 

or witnesses would be entitled to collect from the county 

one-half fees as In other misdemeanor cases as provided 

by Article 1055, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Bearing 

in mind that officers issuing and serving process are only 

entitled to the same fees and mileage as in other misdemeanor 

ca*es. qe enclose a copy of this opinion herewith. 

With reference to opinion No. 1981, Supra, it will be noted that It is 

stated in part; “the officers or witaeaaeswould be entitled to collect from 

the county one-half fees”, etc. The word ‘witnesses” was ina.lvertently 

inserted. Witnesses are not entitled to any fees under Art. 1055 C. C. P. 

Therefore, opinion No. 1981, is modified accordingly. 

Article 235, Vernon’s Annotated Code of Criminal Procedure, provides: 

“One arrested for a misdemeanor ahall be taken before a 

magistrate of the county where the arrest takes place who 

shall take bail and transmit immediately the bond so taken 

to the court having jurisdiction of the offense.” 
Hon. Dewey S. Walker, Att'n: Robert B. Smither, Page # 3 O-4680 

You do not state in your letter whether or not the provisions of Article 

235, aupra, were complied with. However, for the purposes of this opinion 

we assuae that the provis,ions of this statute were complied with, and 

that the defendant did not enter into and execute a bail bond and the 

defendant was committed to jail of the county where he was arrested under 

Article 236, Vernon's Annotated Code of Criminal Procedure, and the 

magistrate committing him notified the sheriff of Walker County in which 

the offense was alleged to have been committed of the arrest and commitment, and the sheriff receiving the notice went for the defendant 

and brought him before the proper court as authorized by Article 237, 

Vernon's Annotated Code of Criminal Procedure. 

In view of the foregoing, you are respectfully advised that it is the 

opinion of this department that the sheriff of Walker County is not 

entitled to collect his fees for the transportation of the defendant 

from the State and that the defendant should be required to remain in 

the county jail until he has satisfied such costs at the rate of $3.00 

per day. (Ex parte Ferguson, I.23 S. W. (2d) 408 and Ex parte Patterson, 

132 5. W. (2d) 411.) And as the county officials of Walker County are 

compensated on a fee basis the sheriff would be entitled to collect 

from the county one-half his mileage and other fees as in other misdemeanor 

cases as provided by Article 1055, Code of Criminal Procedure. 

Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your inquiry, we are. 

Yours very truly 

A!ITORNEY GEWEBADOF TEXAS 

s/ Ardell Williams 

Assistant 

AW:CO/Ldw 

APPROVED JUG 8, 1sQ 

s/ GWALDC. MANN 

ATTORNEY QXEBALOFTEXM 

APPROVED 

OPINION 

COMMITTEE 

BY B. W. B. 

CHAIRMAN