JIM MAl-fOX 

Attorney General 

supreme COJrl Building 

P. 0. Box 12548 

AWm, TX. 78711.2548 

51214752501 

Telex 910187C1387 

TeIec~Pier 51214750288 

714 Jackron, Suite 700 

Dallas. TX. 75202-4508 

214rI42a944 

42.24 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 

El Paso, TX. 799052792 

91515353484 

1001 Texas. Sulle 700 

Houston. TX. 77002.3111 

71312215886 

808 eroadway. suite 312 

,.ubl,ock, TX. 794013479 

@Y&747-5238 

4209 N. Tenth. Sulle S 

MCAllml. TX. 78501-1885 

51218824547 

200 MaIn Plaza. Sub 4w 

San Antonio. TX. 78X6-2797 

512/2254191 

An Equal OPPOftUnilYl 

AffirmaWe Action Employer 

The Attorney General of Texas 

~trbruary 21. 1986 

Eonorable Guy Rardin 

District Attorney 

P. 0. Box 1592 

Psmpa, Texas 79065 

Dear Mr. Eardin: 

Opinion No.JM-420 

Rc: Expenditure of $27,650 allocated 

by the legislature for the benefit 

of ths district attomsy of the 31st 

and 223rd judicial districts 

You inquire &out the funding for the office you hold as district 

attorney for the ,J:ist and 223rd judicial districts. Section 24.133 of 

the Government Code, formerly article 199, section 31, V.T.C.S., 

provides that thl! 31st judicial district shall be composed of five 

counties, includj.og Gray County. Section 24.401 of the Government 

Code, formerly article 1996, section 3.050, V.T.C.S., establjshes the 

223rd judicial district composed of Gray County. 

Your questic,n concerns the management of the $27,650 which the 

state has allocate’i to your office for office expenses other than your 

own salary. Chr.ptar 46 of the Government Code, the Professional 

Prosecutors Act, p,rovides for this appropriation: 

Sec. 46.004. EXPENSES. (a) Each prosecutor 

is ent::tled to receive not less than $22,50@ a 

year flea the state to be used by the prosecutor 

to hell1 defray the salaries and expenses of the 

office. That money may not be used to supplement 

the prosecutor’s salary. 

(b) Each prosecutor shall submit annually to 

the couptroller of public accounts a sworn account 

shoving how this money was spent during the year. 

[Porme~ly V.T.C.S. art. 332b-4, $41. 

The district attxcney for the 31st judicial district is entitled to 

this sppropriat,Lon. Government Code 546.002(l). The current 

Appropriations Act provides a maximum of $27.650 per district per year 

in multi-county districts. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, art. IV, at 

7722. 

Pou state that the Gray County Commissioners Court has in effect 

completely takea ,this amount away from your office when your budget 

p. 1963 
Ronorable Guy Pardin - Page i! (Jn-428) 

, 4 

. 

was submitted. The court hnls established a procedure whereby the full 

amount of $27,650 is deducted from your office budget and the five 

counties comprising the 31st district allov tbe balance of your office 

budget es their portion to ‘b’e paid for the expenses of the office. 

The counties that cwprise the district are responsible for 

paying the salaries of the district attornay’s staff and the expenses 

of his office. Government Code 0141.106, 41.107. The Professional 

Prosecutors Act provides the following: 

(a) It is th’e purpose of this chapter to 

increase the effectiveness of lav enforcement in 

this state and tc Increase the funds available for 

use in prosecutic’n. 

(b) The connn:lssionere court in each county 

that has a prosecutor subject to this chapter 

shall provide the funds necessary to carry out the 

purpose of this chapter and shall continue to 

provide funds for the office of the prosecutor in 

an ar.ount that 1~s equal to or greater than the 

amount of funds provided for the office by the 

county’ on August 27, 1979. This subsectjon does 

not apply to 101~1 supplementation to the salary 

of the prosecutor,. 

Government Code 046.006. ‘This provision became effectfve on August 

27, 1979. Acts 1979, 66th ‘Leg., ch. 705, at 1709 (codified as V.T.C.S. 

art. 332b-4). The five counties in the 31st judicial district must 

continue funding your offic’e in an amount at least equal to the amount 

of funding each one prov1tie.d on that date. 

Commissioners Court, 560 

See Broom v. Tvler County 

!;.,W.2d 435 (Tsx. Civ. App. - Eeaumont 1977, 

no writ); Attorney General Opinions E-572 (1975); E-39 (1973) 

(applying provisions in article 3912k, V.T.C.S.. which prevents 

commissioners court from rsettiog sslorias lower than they were on 

effective date of statute). We do not know bov much funding each 

county provided the distrfct attorney’s office in 1979; thus, we 

cannot determine whether thefr present funding is sufficient. 

Pou also state that for the past two years, each itea you have 

submitted for payment to the various ccunties has been refused brceuse 

you did not include it in your budget. This yesr, you put a contingency item in your budgr:t which the commissioners court summarily 

struck; thus you again will be unable to pay for unexpected office 

expenses. 

Attoruey General Opinion JP-70 (19S3) discusses the role of the 

commissioners COUIX in adopting the budget for the county’ 6 

p. 1964 
Aoootable Guy Aardin - Pega; 3 (JM-428) 

prosecuting office. It expressed the following opinion about the 

state funds for the district: attorney’s office: 

In our oplnlot~ the fuuds received by a district 

attorney pursuenz to the Profeesionel Prosecutors 

Act may be used in his sole discretion for the 

putposes authorimrd under the statute and are not 

subject to control by the commissioners court. 

Section 4 of article 332b-4 states that tbe state 

funds are payablo to the district attorney aud are 

to be used by the district attorney. See Acts 

1981, 67th Leg., Appropriations Act. Judiciary 

Section - Comptroller’s Department, 19 (‘payments 

shall be made dlkectly to district attorney’). 

[See also Acts 1,985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, art. IV 

at7722;J 

Section 41.106 of thgr Government Code applies to budgeting for 

county funds. The distric,t attorney prepares his budget and submits 

it to the commissioners #court, subject to their veto. Attorney 

General Opinions J?4-313 (1.985) ; R-922 (1977); E-908 (1976); R-656 

(1975). In our opinion, the commissioners court my veto an item in 

your proposed budget vhic’l allocates county funds to contingencies, 

but it may not prevent you from using the state funds received under 

chapter 46 of the Governmelt Code for contingencies. 

SUMMARY 

when a distrkt attorney receives state funds 

for his office expenses under section 46.004 of 

the Government ,:odc. the counties composing the 

district must cqnitinue to provide funds for his 

office in an amount at least equal to the amount 

of funds provided for the office by the county on 

the effective date of the act. Punds received 

under this statut:e are not subject to appropriation or control’by the commissioners court. 

J I-M MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

JACX HIGHTOWER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

p. 1965 
Rouoreble Guy Bardin - Page 4 Uti-428) 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attome:, General 

ROBERT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Comittee 

Prepared by Susan L. Garriam 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 1966