JIM MAlTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Buildin 

P. 0. Box 12548 

Austin, TX. 78711. 254Q 

512l4752501 

letox 91ols74-1357 

Telecopier 512i475025Q 

714 Jackson. Sulle 700 

Dallas. TX. 75202.4505 

2w?42a944 

4S24 Alberta Ave., Suite 150 

El Paso. TX. 79905.2793 

915633as4 

1001 Texas. Suite 700 

Houston. TX. 77002~3111 

713122~5886 

808 Broadway. Suite 312 

Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 

SOw747.5238 

4309 N. Tenth. Suite S 

MCAhl. TX. 78501-1685 

512mQ2e47 

200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 

San Antonlo, TX. 7.52052797 

51Y225-4191 

An Equal OpportunityI 

Affirmative Action Employer 

The Attorney General of Texas 

April 23, 1986 

Mr. Bob E. BradleT 

Executive Director 

Texas State Board of Public 

Accountancy 

1033 La Posada, Su,Lte 340 

Austin, Texas 10’152 

Opidion No. m-482 

Ret Reconsideration of Attorney 

General Opinion 34-290 (1984). 

which construed article 6252-13c, 

V.T.C.S., to require a licensiog 

agency to revoke the license of any 

individual convicted of a feloty 

Dear Mr. Bradley: 

You have asked for advice about implementing Attorney General 

Opinion JM-290 (1984). which interpreted article 6252-13c, V.T.C.S., 

to require a licensing board to revoke au individual's license upon 

his conviction o:i a felony while licensed. Your opinion request has 

caused us to reconsider the conclusion resched in Attorney General 

Opinion JM-290 (1984). 

Article 625:!-13c, V.T.C.S.. was enacted as section 1 of Senate 

Blll No. 247 by the Sixty-seventh Legislature. Acts 1981, 67th Leg., 

ch. 267 at 694. Senate Bill No. 247 also included as section 2 the 

provisions codified as article 6252-13d, V.T.C.S. The legislation 

enacted as Senate Bill No. 247 reads in part: 

Artlclo 6252-13~ 

. . *, . 

Set, 4. (a) A licea stng authority may suspend 

or revske au existing valid license, disqualify 

a person from receiving a license, or deny to a 

person 1 :he opportunity to be examined for a license 

becauw of a persou's conviction of a felony or 

u&de&&or if the crime directly relates to the 

dutieslaud responsibilities of the licensed occupation. 

(b) In determining whether a criminal conviction directly relates to au occupation. the 

licenstag authority shall consider: 

p. 2204 
Mr. Bob E. Bradley - Page 2 (JM-482) 

(1) the natur,e and seriousness of the crime; 

(2) the relationship of the crime to the 

purposes for requl.rlng a license to engage la the 

occupatioo; 

(3) the extent to which a license might offer 

an opportunity t,o engage in further criminal 

activity of the same type as that in which the 

person previously had been Involved; and 

(4) the relat:ionship of the crime to the 

ability, capacit:r,, or fitness required to perform 

the duties and discharge the responsibilities of 

the licensed occupation. 

(c) In addition to the factors chat may be 

considered under Subsection (b) of this section. 

the,liccnsing authority, in determining the present 

fitness of a pewon who has been convIcted of a 

crime, shall conlr%der the folloving evidence: 

(1) the extmt and nature of the person’s past 

criminal actlvit:r:; 

(2) the age of the person at the time of the 

cormcission of the crime; 

(3) the amount of time that has elapsed since 

the person’s last criminal activity; 

(4) the conduct and work activity of the person 

prior to and follovlng the criminal activity; 

(5) evidence of the person’s rehabilitation or 

rehabilitative effort while incarcerated or 

following releare; 

(6) other c:vidence of the person’s present 

fitness, 1nclud:ing letters of rectmeendation from: 

prosecution, liw enforcement, and correctional 

officers who prosecuted, arrested, or had custodial 

responsibility for the perscn; the sheriff and 

chief of police in the community where the person 

restdes; and any other persons In contact with the 

convicted person;; and 

(7) it sha’L:L be the responsibility of the 

applicant to the extent possible to secure and 

p. 220s 
Mr. Bob E. Bradley - Page 3 11JM-482) 

. l 

provide to the llceasing authority tht recomendations of the pI,ostcution, law l nforcextnt, and 

correctional authorities as required under this 

Act. . . . 

(d) Proceedingis held before a statt licensing 

authority to establish factors contained ID this 

section are governed by the Administrative 

Proctdure and Texas Register Act, a6 amended 

(Article 6252-13a, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes). 

(e) Qon’a lictnste’s felony conviction, felony 

probation revocation, revocation of parole, or 

revocation of &datory 

shall be revoked.- 

supervision. his license 

Art. 6252-13d. 

Section 1. [Adds art. 6252-13~1 

stc. 2. If t. licensing authority suspends or 

revokes 6 valid- license or denies a ptrson a 

license or the Opportunity to be examined for a 

licenst because t? the person’6 prior conviction of 

a crime and the ?relationship of the crime to the 

license. the licensing authority shall notify the 

person in writing;: 

(1) of the reasons for the suspension, 

revocation, denial., or disqualification; 

(2) of the rwiew procedure provided by Section 

3 of this Act; and 

(3) of the earliest date that the person may 

appeal. 

Sec. 3. [ rev,Lev procedure] 

Sec. 4. (a) Each llctnsing authority. shall 

issue vithin six month6 after the effective date of 

this Act guidelines relating to the actual practice 

of the authority in carrying out Section 1 of this 

Act. . . , 

sec. 5. This Act shall not apply to those 

persons licensed by the TtX66 State Board of 

Medical Examiners,, State Board of Pharmacy, State 

Board of Dents]. Examiners, or The Veterinary 

p. 2206 
Mr. Bob E. Bradley - Page 4 I:JM-482) 

. 

. 

Licensing Act . . . and vho have been convicted of 

a felony under the Texas Controlled Substances 

Act . . . or the Texas Dangerous Drug Act. . . . 

(Emphasis added; citations omitted from section 5 

of article 6252-l?'d, V.T.C.S.). (Emphasie added). 

Section 4(a) of article 6252-13~ appeare on its face to be 

inconsistent vith other provisions of Eouse Bill Ro. 247; in fact, 

sect&m 4(e) appears to be radically inconsistmt In tone with the 

entire rest of the bill. Section 4(a) of article 6252-13c, V.T.C.S.. 

States that a l~censlng au:hority mua suspend or revoke an existing 

license because of a felonI, conviction If the crime directly relates 

to the duties and respouslbllitles of the licensed occupation. 

Section 4(e) of that statute, however, states that upou a licensee's 

felony conviction, his license shall be revoked. This latter 

provision suggests that the, licansi~thority has a mandatory duty 

to revoke a license vhen its holder Is finally convicted of a felony, 

and that the board has no dJ;scretion to act otherwise in such cases. 

Attorney General Opinion J'B-290 (1984) addressed the conflict between 

section 4(a) and section 4(e) and determined that section 4(e) did in 

fact Impose a mandatory duty on licensing agencies to revoka the 

license of a convicted feltm. It read section 4(a) as applicable to 

felony convictions occurr1.n.g before the individual applied for a 

license, and section 4(c) as applicable to felony convictions 

occurr%ng while licensed. 

This opinion did not address other conflicting provisions in 

Rouse Bill No. 247. Sect%,>11 5 of article 6252-13d. V.T.C.S., states 

that the act does not apply to certain licensees In health professions 

who have been convicted of a felouy under the Texas Controlled 

Substances Act, article 4476-15, V.T.C.S.. or the Texas Dangerous Drug 

Act, article 4476-14, V.T.C.S. The licenses of the enumerated medical 

practitioners are subject to mandatory revocation for a felony 

conviction under either ari:Lcle 4476-14 or article 4476-15. V.T.C.S. 

arts. 4495b. 14.01 (physic:Lans); 4542a, 112A (pharmacists); 4549-l 

(dentists); 7465a. 114 (v~,terlnarians); matted by Acts 1981, 67th 

Leg., ch. 52 at 101. If Bouse Bill Bo. 247 In fact mandates license 

revocatlou upon a felony couvlction in all cases, the exception In 

section S of article 6:!52-13d is meaningless surplusage. The 

inclusion of this axception suggests that the legislature did not 

Intend to require revocation of all occupational and professional 

licenses upon the felony c,mviction of the licensee. The courts have 

looked to exceptions in statutes to determine the class of persons 

covered by the statute. Sm. e.g., State v. Richards. 301 S.W.2d 597 

~TZw~90~)[j4St%$%~'vrit refri n.r.e.). 

Dowlearn 489 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. Civ. App. 

Moreover, section 2 of article 6252-13d, V.T.C.S., requires 

written notification of a person "[iIf a llcens%ng authority suspends 

p. 2207 
Mr. Bob F. Bradley - Page 5 (JM-482) 

or revokes a valid license . . . because of the perscn’s prior 

conviction of a crime and the relationship of the crime to the 

license. . . .” Thus, section 2 of article 6252-13d, V.T.C.S., appears 

to be inconsistent vith suction b(e) of article 6252-13~. V.T.C.S., 

yet another ambiguity in Eause Bill go. 247. 

Attorney General Opln:.on JM-290 did not investigate the leglslarive histcry of Bouse Bill ho. 247, vhich we now believe Is essential 

to an understanding of this enactment. Tn construing an ambiguous 

statute, vhich Bouse Bill No. 247 undoubtedly is, ve may look to 

circumstances of its passage that relate to legislative intention. 

Texas 6 N.O.R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 200 S.W.2d 626 (Tax. 1947). 

If the meanine of a stat& la ic doubt, reference mav be made to 

legislative joirnals and rwordb , debates, and committee reports. F.ed 

River National Bank v. Faq~, 206 S.W. 923 (Tax. 1918); kiCiOiiiii 

Carloading Corp. V. Phoenix El Paso Expresg, 178 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. Civ. 

APP. - El Paso), aff’d, 1% S.W.2d 564 (Tex. 1943)) cert. denied 322 

E.S. 747 (1044); Pane. Bassett, 235 S.W. 917 (Tex. Civ. AT.-- El 

Paso 1921, no vr*-. We turn to an examination of the legislative 

history of Sousa Bill No. 2,47, as a guide to construing the language 

of section 4 (e) . 

Eouse Bill No. 247, ss Introduced, was very similar to bills 

enacted in the two prior r,essions, only to be vetoed by the governor. 

S.B. No. 1182, 65th Leg. (1977); R.B. No. 590, 66th Leg. (1979). See 

also S.J. of Tex., 65th Leg., R.S., at 2634 (1977); H.J. of Tex., 66th 

Leg., R.S., at 5292 (197!1); Vetoed Bills 8 Resolutions, Acts 1977. 

65th Leg., R.S. at 3375; Vetoed Bills h Resolutions, Acts 1979, 66th 

Leg., R.S.. at 3250. The bill as introduced, and the bills from the 

two prior sessions, ware clj.rected at making liceneed occupations open 

to rahabilitatsd exoffer,ders. Kouse Committee on Security and 

Sanctions, Eill Analysis to R.B. No. 247. 67th Leg. (1981). As 

introduced, Rouse Bill No,. 247 did not Include the language found in 

section 4(e) of article 6:!52-13~; the prototype of this provision wae 

added by the Bouse Commitl:ee on Security and Sanctions. P.J. of Tex. 

67th Leg., R.S. at 783 1:1981). The bill prohibited e licensing 

authority from suspending or revokfng an existing valid license 

because of prior conviction of a crime unless the crime directly 

related to the duties and responsibilities of the licensed occupation. 

Eoreover, It also provided that a license could not be suspended or 

revoked for conviction XE a crime that directly related to the 

occupation as long as the person showed present fitness and 

rehabilitaticn following MS release from a correctional facility. 

The 1979 version of house Bill No. 247 was vetoed by the governor 

because of its provision for licensing an exoffender whose crime 

directly related to the licensed occupation. The veto message stated 

that the standards for reln~bilitation wera too low 

p. 2208 
Mr. Bob E. Bradley - Page 6 (JK-482) 

Criteria like satisfactory completion of parole, 

one year lapse s,ince release from prison, or 

letters of reference are certainly not sufficient 

to establish real rehabilitation. 

Veto Message of Governor Clamants. Tex. E.B. No. 590, 66th Leg. 

(1979). 

House Bill No. 247 as it passed the Eouse included provisions for 

rehabilitation Identical to those which caused the governor’s veto of 

the prior bill. It also included the predecessor of section b(e) of 

article 6252-13~. V.T.C.S.: 

(f) On a 1l:ansee’s final conviction of a 

felony after thl? issuance of his license, the 

license shall be revoked. A person whose license 

is revoked under this subsection may not receive 

or be examined for any license. 

This language was added an a committee amendment, without objection, 

and adooted as a floor amendment. again without objection. R.J. of 

Tex., 67th Leg., R.S.. 7f3, 1227 (i981); Bearing on B.B. NO. 247, 

Before the Eouse Commitreezn Security and Sanctions, 67th Leg. (March 

11, 1981). 

Discussion in the Senate was directed at correcting the problem 

vhich led to the governoz’s veto. Discussion In the Senate State 

Affairs Committee characterized Eouse Bill No. 247 as permitting 

license reinstatement for persons vith occupational licenses who are 

discharged from the Deps&ent of Corrections. Bearing on B.B. No. 

247 Befora the Senate Stake Affairs Committee, 67th Leg. (April 27, 

1981). The Senate commiwee adopted a committee substitute vhich 

deleted provisions allowing anyonewdischarged from sentence to get his 

license back automatically,. Id. Instead, it required the licensing 

board to review the case anddetermine that the offense vas not 

related to the profession or occupation and that the Individual had 

achieved rehabilitation. Unless both conditions were met. the 

individual’s license would not be reinstated. Senate floor debate on 

the committee substitute also emphasized that it allowed the licensing 

boards to reinstate lic~~nses of exoffendere under the statutory 

criteria. Debate on E.B. No. 247 on the Floor of the Senate, 67th 

Leg. (May 15, 1981). Thu,r,, a person who had an occupational license 

before sentence could apply for reinstatement of his licensing after 

incarceration, vhile persons who learned a trade in prison would have 

to apply for a license like anyone else. Id. 

- 

The Senate approved an amendment conforming the caption to the 

body of the bill and v0i.e.d to pass Rouse Bill No. 247 as amended. 

. 

p. 2209 
Mr. Bob E. Bradley - Pege 7 l(JH-482) 

S.J. of Tex. 67th Leg., R.S. at 1287-1290. The Eousa concurred in the 

Senate amendment. B.J. of ‘Alex.. 67ch Leg., R.S. at 2982-2986. 

Throughout Senate confideration of the committee substitute to 

Eouse Bill No. 247 It contained the troublesome language codified as 

section 4(e) of article 62X!-13~. V.T.C.S.: 

(e) Upon a liccusee’s felony conviction, felony 

probation revocadon, revocation of parole, or 

revocation of mandatory supervision, his license 

shall be revoked, (Emphasis added). 

The “licensee’s felony confliction” In section b(e) should be limited 

to a felony conviction which results in the licensee’s actual 

incarceration in the Department of Corrections or another penitentiary. An axamination of s,xction 4(e) as a vhole shows that the other 

events requiring license “revocation” under section b(e) apply to 

s-one who is already a c:anvicted felon and whose conduct requires 

him to be incarcerated or raincarcerated in the penitentiary. Section 

b(e) implies that a convicts-d felon on probation or parole or under 

mandatory supervision may hold a license that will be revoked when his 

probation, parole, or mandatory supervision is revoked. We believe 

section 4(e) requires license suspension only while the felon is 

physically incarcerated: Section b(e) of article 6252-13~. V.T.C.S., 

thus does not apply to s licensee placed on probation after a felony 

conviction; the licensing board’s authority to discipline the licensee 

in such cases is governed by the permissive provisions of section 4(a) 

through 4(d) of article 6252-13~. V.T.C.S. 

Section 4(e) of artLcle 6252-13~. V.T.C.S., does require a 

license to be revoked when the licensee’s felony conviction results in 

his incarceration, or vhen his felony probation, parole, or mandatory 

supervision is revoked. Licenses revoked under section b(e) are, 

hovever , subject to possible reinstatement following the procedures 

found in section 4(a) th::ough 4(d). The legislature consistently 

characterizes House Bill No. 247 as providing for rainstatement of an 

exoffender’s license. If an individual’s license Is revoked under 

section 4(e). he may not 1~: required to reapply and qualify for the 

licensee as a first-time annlicant %n order to resume his former 

status as a licensee. Set! cxas h N.O.R.G. v. Railroad Commission, 

supra (when the 1eglsLat-I;; purpose is ascertainad, the significance 

of words may be restricted or enlarged to give meaning the legislature 

intended). Whether an exoffender’s license will be reinstated is to 

be determined in accordancr: with sections 4(a) through 4(d) of article 

6252-13~. V.T.C.S. 

In summary, the mande,tory license revocation provisipn found in 

section 4(e) applies in a narrower class of felony convictions than 

suggested la Attorney General Opinion JM-290. Moreover, an individual 

p. 2210 
Mr. Bob E. Bradley - Page 8 '(m-482) 

whose license is revokad purcuant to section b(e) of article 6252-13~. 

V.T.C.S.. may seek relnstattalent under the procedures of that statute. 

Attorney General Opinion N-290 is overruled to the extent it IS 

Inconsistent with this opidon. 

We turn to your specffia questions. You esk bow the State Board 

of Public Accountancy should apply Attorney Ganeral Opinion JM-290 in 

carrying out its duties under article bla-1. V.T.C.S., the Public 

Accountancy Act of 1979. WI: will address your questions in accordance 

with the interpretation of article 6252-13~. V.T.C.S.. given in this 

opinion. 

Your first two questlow are as follows: 

1. Does Attorney General Opinion 311-290 extend 

to all licensees of the Texas State Board of 

- 

Public Accountancy, or 

2. Does Attorney General Opinion JM-290 apply 

only to individuals receiving certificates and 

original licenses after the effective date of 

article 6252-13c, V.T.C.S.? 

Article 6252-13c, V.T.C.S., applies to all licensees of 

. . 

the Texas 

State Board of Public Accountancy. Tte board is a "licensing 

authority" subject to the set. See V.T.C.S. art. 6252-13~. II; see 

also V.T.C.S. art. 6252-,13a, s?Ti), (4) (defining "agency" and 

"licensing" for purposes of article 6252-13~. V.T.C.S.). The exceptions to article 62S2-13c, V.T.C.S.. vhich cover the Supreme Court, 

persons licensed under its authority, and any person vho Is or seeks 

to become a peace officer, d,o not apply to licensees of your board. 

Article 6252-13~. V.T.,C.S., applies to all licenses issued by the 

Texas State Board of Public: Accountancy, and not onLy to licenses held 

by individuals who were first licensed after the effective date of the 

statute. Article 4(e), the provision requiring revocation of licenses, 

.applies to the following events occurring after tLw effective date of 

article 6252-13~. V.T.C.S.: the licensee's felony convictions 

resulting in incarceraticn, and the revocation of his probation, 

parole, or mandatory supc~vision. See Government Personnel Mutual 

Life Insurance Co. v. Weal;,, 251 S.W.2d525 (Tax. 1952) (statutes are 

presumed to operate prospc:nively). 

Your questions number ,three and seven are as follows: 

3. Assuming the answer to question No. 1 is 

affirmative and the board is requtred to amend 

Substantive Rule 525, what vould be the effective 

p. 2211 
Mr. Bob E. Bradley - Page 9 (JM-482) 

date for implementation of the revocation policy 

(e.g., "Pan adoption of article 6252-13~. 

V.T.C.S., upon acllendwnt of board rules to Include 

revocation of s license for conviction of a 

felony, etc.)? 

7. If the e~!fective date for implementation 

were upon adoption of article 6252-13~. V.T.C.S., 

would a 'grandfat,her clause' excluding individuals 

licensed between the effective date for implemencation and the drte of amendment of board mles be 

acceptable? 

Since your stateroent &out amending Substantive Rule 525 is based 

on the interpretation of article 6252-13~. V.T.C.S., given in Attorney 

General Opinion J'M-290, we believe you should consider the question of 

amendment in light of this opinion. 

Article 6252-13c, V.I.C.S.. became effective September 1, 1981. 

Inolementation of a statuta begins with its effective date, and the 

board may not postpone the affective date by promulgating a mle. See 

State v. Jackson, 376 S.W.:!d 341 (Tex. 1964); Attorney General CpinG 

W-204 (1980). 

Your fourth and fifth questions are as follows: 

4. If the h;uswer to question No. 1 is 

affirnative. 1~u:31: all renewal applications for 

licenses with tlhe board be submitted to the 

Zlcpartaent of Public Safety for a check of 

conviction records? 

5. What check of conviction records must the 

board n&e on !.l.censees living outside of Texas 

and what check of records musr rhr board uake on 

federal convictions? 

Section 3 of article 6252-13~. V.T.C.S.. provides as follows: 

Sec. 3. All agencies of this state and its 

political subdfi,isions with the duty and responsibility of licensing and regulating members of 

particular tradl?s, occupations, businesses. vocations, or profe:3siors shall have the authority to 

obtain from the Texas Department of Public Safety 

or from a local law enforcercent agency the record 

of any convictj,on of any perscr. applying for or 

holding a licenru: from the requesting agency. 

p. 2212 
I 

Mr. Bob E. Bradley - Page 10 (JM-482) 

This provision authorizes. blat does not require, a licensing agency to 

obtain conviction records fr:ow the Texas Department of Public Safety 

or * local law enforcement agency. Prior to the enactment of article 

6252-13~. V.T.C.S., the Public Accountancy Act authorized the revocation of licenses upon "final conviction of a felony under the laws of 

any state or the United States." (Emphasis added). V.T.C.S. art. 

41a-1, 521(S). See Acts 1FK 57th Leg., ch. 289. at 608, 617. 

Presumably the box obtain& information about felony convictions to 

use in exercising this power under its enabling statute, and it nay 

continue to use the sane sources of infomation to implement section 

4(e) of article 6252-13~. Moreover, the mandatory duty to revoke a 

license for a felony conviction applies only when the conviction 

results in incarceration. Thus ( records of admissions to state 

prisons could be another source of information for the board. 

Your sixth question is contingent on different answers frox those 

we gave. Accordingly, we nc.ed not answer it. 

Your eighth question 11; as follows: 

8. Would the revocation procedure require the 

board hearing process as specified in the Public 

Accountancy Act cf 1979. as amended, sections 21 

and 22? 

Only sectton 22 of articlle 41a-1, V.T.C.S., sets out a hearing 

procedure. Section 21 stiltes conduct for which a license may be 

suspended OK revoked, and directs that section 22 shall be followed. 

We will limit our answer to the portions of these statutes governing 

procedures. Section 4(d) of article 6252-13~. V.T.C.S., states that 

(d) Proceedings held before a state licensing 

authority to est,~blish factors contained in this 

section are governed by the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act, as amended (Article 

6252-13a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes). 

The Administrative Procedure Act sets out the procedural rules 

for establishing factors included in section 4 of article 6252-13~. 

V.T.C.S. The board may f,>:Llow procedures set out in section 22 of 

article 41a-1, V.T.C.S., tc, the extent these are not inconsistent with 

the Administrative Procedum Act. 

SUMMARY 

Section 4(a) of article 6252-13c, V.T.C.S., 

requires a licensing agency to suspend a license 

upon a licensee's felony conviction which results 

in incarceration, or upon revocation of his felony 

p. 2213 
Mr. Bob E. Bradley - Page 11 (JM-482) 

probation. parol.e,. or mandatory supervision. 

Attorney General Opinion JM-290 (1984) is overruled to the extmt it is inconsistent with this 

opinion. 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

Veryltruly yours. 

t&c 

JACK BIGBTOWER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

ROBERT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICX GILPIN 

Chairman, Opiniou Comittec: 

Prepared by Susan L. Garrlrmn 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 2214