OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

3.16 

Eoaorablr r’raak B. Lloyd 

DIstrl6t Attornsr 

79th fudfaial Dlrtrlat 

A11o0, Toracr 

“&fials 4605. The St&to f3oard of Sodlsal Pxazfzinere sey rcfkre to abdt person8 to 

Ita euwlnations aoa to forue license to -matloe ~~~dlolno to any psraon, 

,folluwln~ reason8 I 

for any of the 
Eonorable Prank B. Llofi, Tago 2 

n 

. . . 

"(2) Conrlotlon of 6 orlme of the 

't" 

a0 or a 

felony, or one whiah lnvolv4r moral turp tuaa . . .* 

r 

:I 

“Artlclit 4506. Tbo Dlrtriat Cat&a of th;r 

State shall have the right to rwoko, 08noe1, or 

oucpend tho lloonre OS any ~praotltlon~r or” mdlolne upon proof of the violation of the lrr In may 

respsot lc regard tbsrato, or for any oaam for 

whloh the State Board OS Yedioal YWmlnm~ rhall be 

authorited to refuse to admit pemocn to it8 emalnetlon, 05 pzovidsd ln ArUe 4605 oi tha Revllrea 

Civil 3tntutcs of Toxata of 1025, a8 anondcd by #is 

tot, and It oh311 bo the duty of the eeveral Dlstrlct and County Attorneys of t?315 state to file 

3na posocuto 32proprlste Judlolol prooecdin~ for 

3uch rwoc0tlon, c3nosllatlon, or susgenslon, in 

the txmt of the state, on request of the Eke1-5 or 

t&%!ieEl i:xndnero.' 

x6 bc!licwe thct the phrafie "the violation of the 

IP::J In any ros>bct In re!:srd thereto* as used 1~ Article 45CG, 

5qma, rsfers szly to such law5 83 rcllnte to the lssaanae, 

suspenolo3 or rcvooatlon of the lloeme to praotice 2ealo;ne, 

rather thsa ta tka violntion al the 13~3 of the State Gensr3lly. 

Tour caostlon, therefore, raoolves ltselt to a oonstruation ST the ward *oonvlotion,* 3s used in pdraqraph (2) 

of hrtlole 4505. 30~s ft man a Jury rindin of 6uilty upon 

on LnClatmnt for e felony or does It m3n a Sinal aonvlatlon'l 

Xherr? a ausyn@ed smtonoe haa been &ranted *celther 

the verdiot of cOmiOtiOn nor the jud@mut eutercd thereon 

stall becom Z?nal' . . ." Artiole 77 El,'Code of CrJsrLnol Pmccdure, 1325. "Vnder the temw of our statute relative to 

sua?endsd mxtozcs, ithan baen herd that in E case where one 

rcoelvea such santenoe the judmcnt ia not ilcal anE oannot 

be appealed IrozP -- Z'ones v. State, z??ol S. k. 1012. If by 

the h7xa nCowlctf~n* as usea in Article 4509, the Leglslature intandod to zmm only a fin.31 oonvtction, oleerly a phyalclan a~uld rst be oubjoot to location of his ~li.oerue to 

praotios n;edlclnc, whom kls strztonos brad bcon suspended upon 

cocviction oc" 5 felony. 
. 

Honorable Prank 8. Lloyd, Page 3 

i 

rho oourtr hare 80 oowtrued the word woonriotod~ 

In the statute (sinae amendedd) ubloh msdo one who heid bea 

comiotad or l felony lnOOmpete5t es a wltnerr. Bee ltapin084 V. state, 168 Se P. 8081 Slmoads tq State, lib 8. V. 

1064; Oolcnzan V. state, 187 s. 8. 481. 

On the other hand, the oourta harr given the opposite oonstrimtibn to the 8sm wWd Vhdi us04 %n oertaia 

other rtotutss. 

gy Mgay 

ze c,aotc sron the opl?liox.l oi Judge Latti- 

. $. 

Court oi Crimliml Agpeelm in, Xill v. Btete, %S 

*It 8ems olear . . . that by the we of the 

lsords ‘convicted or a folonyl in reotlons 1, E, 3, 

tnd 5 OS the statute nnder dlsonssion (the euependsd 

aentcnoe lsw., Article ObSb-f, Code of Crfmlnal Pmordure) wes nca:lt thst ststus resultfa6 fro= a Judenent based on the verdiat oi a jury ilndlng the’ eoCUo& @Iilty Ctf BOW $dOnY. The t6rCi ‘5OUViOtiO5’ 

1s used ln aany of our statutes in mob the 8-0 

BamDO. . . . our OCEOIU~OI~ n-02 tht ab0~a mt6- 

mats that one ‘oonvlctcd of a relonp whose sentonoe 

is suz+ptnetd 1s n~.thil!l the oo~prthtllslon 0r this 

otatute, whea It used tho eqimession *oonvloted of 

a felony;** 

Llkswlse the +wt of Criminal ApFesls of Texas has 

construed the rnrd Roontlotlon” as used In Artlole 4, (3eotion 

11 of tht Texas Co.wtltutlon ns meaoln~ merely a rtrdlot ‘of 

gutlty, rather than a flcel oonvlotion. see: ~08s Y* State, 

298 s. z. 588 and Duke v. Stats, 291 3. a. 539. In the Duke 

ease, Judge Uorrow wed th6 following lenL~aee: 

“Acoordlng to the wel&ht OS the preowlants, it 

seem, in its relation to the aowtr to pardon, the 

term *oonvlotlon’ refers to B verdict of ‘eulltp* by 

a jury and 1s not restrloted to R final JudQcsnt on 

suoh vudiot .* 

It is apprent fnn tht fort&ng that tht Texas 

oourts hnvt not follomd any fired lnttrpretetion of the word 

nconvlotlon* as used in Vnrlous statutes. The question haa 

not been dlreotlp nlaed uodsr the statute under oonaideretion. 

iievooatlons of physlolens’ lloensss upon’ ottier grounda, under 

tbla ntntute (prior to lte 1039 manr?mnt) hnre been twioe SWtairad in the cases of Cumln@m v. State er ml Shook, 79 
Xonor-ablo Prank 3. tloyd, Fags 4 

3. IE. (&I) 180 [writ of em-or retuo~dd and 8 oer Y. St0te, 

109 9. a:. kd) 1150 (nit of orror dlomlooo6 P. 

iFa cnolose herewith 009~ ot oar Opinioa Ho. O-1894, 

ad&owed to the fkn. !3ert Ford, Wherein tb0 ward "oonrleted~ 

ao wed ln the Texas Liquor Cont.tml hot 10 oolldtrued. The 

0 lnion review deoioiona Wm other 0tator vhloh lndloatr 

t & t the walght Oi authority i0 in istOr OS the via thet 

~oonrlotlOn" 0601111 8 a 60~18tlOr: UrilOS0 S 000tr0~ iotent is wnltlrtsd by tho statute In whloh the word lo use& 

Xe oosolude, therefore, tha,t the phmos *oonviotion of a orlwe OS the grada OS ftlonp,” as uacd in l eo tlo n 

(a) of Artiole 4505, Rrriaed Girl1 Stntttteo ot Texas, hoald 

be oonstrusd to men u oonoiotlon. O0naagnently, a ;?h siolsn who had received a suepsndad santenat upon b oonrlot I oa 

ot II ttlony, vmld not bc aubjaot to hare No llocmse to praotics zedloine revoked upon that ;,muml alone, alnoe h$s omavlotlon would cot be tloal. Ee wlah to golnt out that nolthtr 

the courte ot cioll sg~es1.s car ths suprsme court ot Texas 

have pnessd upon the questloq x%arofora our oplnlon hsreon 

oannot be given the aam weight os thoyb It WeFt baaed u?on 

tbe prior dealsiam ot our a$?ollata osurts beiox ahom t!ils 

cpotlon mxng be prtssnteu. 

YDur3 very traly 

‘By- q%Lc& 

‘iralter Ii. Gooh 

xaaistant