THEATTORNEY GENE 

OF TEXAS 

Mr. Jack Ross, Chairman Opinion No. C- 13.5 

Board of Pardons and Paroles 

BOX 2176 Re: Whether House Bill 395, 

Capitol Station Acts of the 58th LeglslaAustin, Texas We, Regular Session, 

Tg63, Chapter 327, page 

,857, when In effect, will 

govern the age limits set 

for parole officers, or 

whether the provisions of 

Article 781d, Section 28, 

Vernon’s Code oS~Crimlna1 

Procedure, will apply as, 

to age limits of such 

Dear Mr. Ross: officers. 

Tou have requested an opinion from this office upon 

the question of whether: 

8, 

govern tiie*a;5e 

Ii. B. 395, when in effect, will 

limits set for parole officers 

employed by this department, or should this 

Board continue Iits compliance with Article 78ld, 

Section 28, C.C.P.” 

Section 28 of Article 781d, Vernon’s Code of Criminal 

Procedure, provides in part that: 

II no person may be employed as a 

parole oh&&r or supervisor, or be responslble for the investigations, surveillance, or 

supervielon of persons on parole, unless he 

meets the following qualifications together 

with any other qualifications that may be 

specified by the Mrector of the Division, 

with the approval of the Board of Pardons 

and Paroles: 26 to 55 years of age, . . .‘I 

(Emphasis added) 

Section 2 of House Bill 395, Acts of the 58th Leglslature, Regular Session, 1963, Chapter 327, page 857, provides 

that: 

“No agency, board, commlsslon, department, or institution of the government of the 

-573- 
Mr. Jack Ross, Chairman, page 2. (C-115 1 

State of Texas, nor any political subdivision ',' 

of the State of Texas, shall establish a maximum age under sixty-five (65) years nor a minlmum age over twenty-one (21) years for emplogment, nor shall any person who is a citizen of 

m State be denied emnlovment bv anv such 

agency, board, commlssibn,"departme&"or lnstitution or any political subdivision of the State 

of Texas solely because of age; provided, however, 

nothing In this Act shall be construed to prevent 

the imposition of minimum and maximumage restrictions for law enforcement peace officers or for 

Sire-fighters; provided, further, that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to instltutlons of higher education with established retirement programs." (Emphasis added) 

House Bill 395 makes no reference to Article 781d nor 

does House Bill 895 contain any repealing clause within its 

provisions. 

For House Bill 395 to act as a repeal of Article 78ld, 

there being no express or general clause found In House Bill 

395, such a repeal would have to be by implication. 39 Tex.Jur. 

137 Statutes, Sec. 73. In addition It is stated in 39 Tex. Jur. 

140 Statutes, Sec. 75, that: 

11 the repeal of statutes by implication 

Is never’&v&ed or presumed. The two acts will 

persist unless the conflicting provisions are so 

antagonistic and repugnant that both cannot stand. 

Where there Is no express repeal, the presumption 

Is that in enacting a new law the Legislature lntended the old statute to remain In operation. 

"Accordingly, a repeal by implication will be 

adjudged only when such result is inevitable or was 

plainly Intended by the Legislature. IS by any 

reasonable construction two acts or statutory provisions can be reconciled and so construed that 

both may stand, one will not be held to repeal the 

other. Especially where the older law ls.partlcular and Is expressed in negative terms, and the 

later statute is general, a construction will be 

sought which harmonizes them and leaves both in 

concurrent operation. . . ." 

In view of the foregoing.lt is to'be noted that House 

Bill 395 merely provides that no agency board, commission, d,epartment, or Institution of the govern&t of the State of Texas 

-574- 
Mr. Jack Ross, Chairman, page 3,. (c- 115 1 

shall establish a maximum age under sixty-five (65) nor a minimum 

age over twenty-one (21) for employment. However, the age restrictions placed upon parole officers employed by the Board of 

Pardons and Paroles, as set forth in Article 78ld, is a restriction placed by the Legislature of the State-of Texas rather than 

by an agency, board, commission, department, or Institution of 

the government of the State of Texas. 

Consequently, we are of the opinion that the provisions 

of House Bill 395 do not act as a repeal of Section 28 of 

Article 78ld, Code of Criminal Procedure enacted by the Leglslature whereby the Legislature set certain age restrictions 

as to these employees. 

SUMMARY 

The provisions of House Bill 895, Acts of the 

58th Legislature, 1968, Chapter 827, page 857, do 

not act as a repeal of Article 781d, Section 28, 

Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore 

the provisions of Section 28 of Article 781d, rather 

than the provisions of House Bill 895, control as to 

the age restriction placed upon the employment of 

parole officers by the Hoard of Pardons and Paroles. 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General 

PB:wb:zt 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTRH 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

C. L. Snow, Jr. 

Scott Garrison 

Paul Phy 

Bill Allen 

REXCNWDFORlHRATTORNRYGHNRRAL 

BY: Stanton Stone 

42 

Assistant 

-575-