The Honorable Henry Wade

Criminal District Attorney Dallas County Government Center Dallas, Texas 75202 The Honorable Edna Cisneros County &District Attorney County ofWillacy 2ndFloor, Courthouse kaymondville, Texas 78580 Opinion No. H-794
Re: Whether a courtmay grant an occupational license toga person convicted of driving while intoxicated who isconfined or imprisoned as a result of the conviction.

Dear Mr. Wade and Ms. Cisneros:
You have requested our opinion regarding aportion of section 25a of article 668733,V.T.C.S., recently amended by the 64th Legislature. The statute nowprovides inpertinent part: Whenever anyperson is convicted of any

offense forwhich thisAct makes automatic the suspension of the operator's, commercial operator's, or chauffeur's license of such person, the court inwhich such conviction ishad shall require the surrender to it of all operators', commercial operators', and chauffeurs' licenses then held by theperson so convicted and the clerk of said court shall thereupon forward the same together with a record of

**p. 3353** The Honorable Henry Wade

The Honorable Edna Cisneros -page 2(H-794)

you inquire about the circumstances under which a court may enter an order permitting the convicted individual to obtain an occupational license, i.e., to retain his current driver's license with added restrictions limiting it to occupational use.
Itmight be argued that, by limiting those circumstances to cases inwhich "theperson convicted isnot confined or imprisoned," the statutemeans merely that the court may not grant an occupational license forusewhile thedefendant is in confinement. Under such aview?he court could permit any convicted defendant to obtain an occupational license, so long as itsusewas restricted to the period inwhich he was not confined. But such an interpretation would render the provision virtually meaningless, since aperson could not normally make use of adriver's license during the period inwhich hewas confined. It iswell established that a statute should not be interpreted in such amanner as to attribute to the Legislature auseless act. State ex rel. Childress v. School Trustees of Shelby County, 23r m2d 777, 781(Tex.Sup. 1951); D‘ii;;on v 89, 96 (Tex.Civ.App. --Houston 1958,writ re :PoaFd Xz.z:J12d
We therefore believe that the statute must be read in such a manner as topreclude the court from granting an occupational license toany defendant who is confined or imprisoned by order of the court.
In our opinion, this interpretation would encompass those situations inwhich adefendant who has been sentenced to be confined has already served the entire amount of his jail time prior to the imposition of sentence. In such instances, thedefendant is ordered "confined or imprisoned" 9 order of the court, but isgranted credit for time served g;;;e;tzz,:;w. gA;icfe 42.03, section 2, Code of it is ourview that a court may grant an occupational lic&se under section 25(a) of article 668713only in cases where the court does not impose confinement or imprisonment. We note that, inaddition to the remedy now provided by section 25(a), themuch broader provisions of section 23A(a) remain in effect, so that w person whose license has been suspended for causes other than physical ormental disability or impairment" may petition the district court for an occupational license.

p.3354The Honorable Henry Wade

The Honorable Edna Cisneros -page ,3 (H-794)

SUMMARY
A courtmay grant an occupational license under section 25(a) of article 6687brV.T.C.S., only in cases where the court does not impose confinement or imprisonment. Very truly yours,

APPROVED: Attorney General of Texas

Opinion Committee jwb

p.3355