i . 

%ZEl Y GJCNERAE 

Texas Prison Board 

711 West Alabama Street 

Houston, Texas 

3ear Sirs: Attention: M??s * C. A. 'Teagle, 

Opinion No, O-2359 - 

Secretary 

Re: Are inmates of the Texas Drison Sgstern, after their release and the 

restoration of their citizenship 

eligible to take the examrnation 

for and become cosmetologists? 

This will acknowledge receipt of your recent 1~etter 

in which you submit the question as stated above. 

Our statutes relating to the practice or occupaticn 

of cosmetology ha7e been Incorporated in Vernon's Anno,iated 

Crimina?~ Statutes as ArtLcle 734b, That Article provfdes that 

no person may lawfully engage in the practice or pursue the 

occupation of a hairdresser ora cosmetologist unless such person sbal.1 have firsi; cb,tained a certificate or registratiorl 

or license from the State Board of Rairdressers and Cosmetol,ogists. 

Section 19 of said Artic1.e ?34b relates to t-he subject 

we are here called upon to interpret. We quote: 

I'Sectlon 15. The said Board created 'by this Aet 

shall have the power to revoke or suspend certificates 

provided in this A&, when the registrant or licensee 

shall have been convfcted of having violated any of 

the provIsions of this law or shall have been conv:eted 

of a felony or shall have been convIcted of drunkenness or of any offense in either the State or Federal 

Court involving the illegal use, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs, and 

any person so charged shall have the right of trial 

by jury in the county or district where such offense 

fs alleged to have been eommftted before the revoeation or cancellation of such license shall become effective. 

"(a) The Board may refuse to grant a certi- 
Texas Prison Board, page 2 Q-2359 

ficate to any person who shall fail to make a 

grade of seventy-five (75) in all subjects upon 

which they are examined, or to any person guilty 

of fraud in passing the examination and obtaining a certlflcate of authority to operate under 

the provisions of this Act at any time, or if 

such person shall be found guilty of a felony, or 

gross Immorality or unprofessional or dishonest conduct, 

or should such person become addicted to the use' 

of drugs, or the habitual use of intoxicating liquor 

to such an extent as to rend,er him or her unfit 

to practice in any G:? the occupations classified 

under this Act, and the Board shall further have 

authority to refuse to issue a permit or to cancel 

a permit issued to any one advertising by means 

of knowingly false and deceptive statements and for 

their failure to dlsplag the certfflcates as provided for in this Act." (UNderscoring ours) 

Under the provjaions of the foregoing statute, you are 

respectfully advised that one who has been convicted of a felony may not legally qualFfg for a certlffcate or license as a 

hairdresser or cosmetologist, unless favored wi,th a full and 

complete pardon and restoration of citizenship. 

As to the effect of such pardon as applied to the aituation of which you 'Lnqulre, we quote the following excerpt from 

Texas Jurisprudence: 

"A full or unconditional pardon operates to 

prevent all further punishment for the offense for 

which it is given, to remove all penal consequences, 

and'diaabilities incident to the conviction, and to 

create in the pardoned offender a new credit and 

capacity wholly unaffected by hIa crime. ‘It; ‘releases the punishment and blots out the guilt so 

that, in the eye cf the law, the offender Ls as 

innocent as if he had never committed the @ffense.' 

It makes him, as has been said, a new man. D . O 

"As a general rule a full pardon restores one 

who has been convicted of a felony to all of his 

civil rights, including those of suffrage and jury 

service. It also removes the felon's disqualification to testify in any other proceeding and makes 

him a competent witness. To have thie effect it is 

essential that the pardon be a full and unconditional one. . . .' (31 Tex. Jur. Pardon, s 9, p. 1265, 

et seq.) 
L ” 

Texas Prison Board, page 3 O-2359 

In Easterwood v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 400, 31 S.W. 

294, it Is said: 

"Disabilities arising out of and attaching to 

a conviction for felony In this state are removed by 

the absolute pardon. The provisions in the Constftution and the laws of this state, 1mposir-g dlsabtlities because of conviction, are not and cannot be 

l~imltations upon the authority of the Governor to 

pardon. It la beyond the‘power of the Legislature 

to so restrict the conseauences of the oardon. His 

power is supreme, and beyond the reach bf legislative limitations. When a full oardon takes effect, 

all disabilities disaupear, and the grantee~~atanda 

as if he had never been convicted. A removal of the 

conviction necessarily removes the disabilitles,be 

cause they are but consequences of the conviction. 

This would therefore restore the party to his-right 

of suffrage, and his competency as a juror. The authorities are clear upon these questions, as we understand them." (Emphasis ours.) 

In the case of Scott v. State, 6 Tex. Clv. App. 343, 

25 S. W. 337, which was an action of disbarment brought against 

anattorney under a statute which provided that one who had 

license to practice law and was convicted of a felony, should 

have his name stricken from the roll of attorneys upon proof 

being made in court of such fact, the defendant produced a 

pardon for the offense of which he had been convicted. The 

pardon was urged to the trial court when proof was offered of 

his convlctlon, and objections made to such evidence being offered by the State.. The trPa1 court overruled Scott and admitted the evidence, but the Court of Civil Appeals, through 

Judge Stephens, said: 

"We are of opinion that after he received an 

unconditional pardon the record of the felony conviction could no longer be used as a basis for the 

proceeding provided for in Article 226. This record, 

when offered in evidence, was met with an unconditlonal pardon, and could not, therefore, properly be said 

to afford 'proof of a conviction of any felony.' HavIng been'thus canceled, all its force as a felony conviction was taken away. A pardon falling short of this 

would not be a pardon, according to the judicTa1 constructlon which that act of executive grace has re-' 

ceived. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 344, 18 L. Ed. 366; 

Knote v. 0. S., 95 U. S. 149,,24 L. Ed. 442, and cases. 

there cited; Young v. Young, 61 Tex. 191." 
Texas Prison Board, page'4 O-2359 

The judgment was reversedand rendered in favor of 

Scott; upon the ground that his pardon wiped out the legal 

consequences of his conviction. 

In the,Case of Sanders v. 

1~ S. W. (2d) 901, 

State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 467, 

appellant had~ been the recipient of a suspended sentence for one felony and during the period of the 

suspension', he was finally convicted In another felony case; 

The States sought to impose sentence on the old case, but was 

met with an unconditional pardon granted to cover the.most 

recent one. The trial judge refused. to boncede this as a 

bar', but the Court of-'Criminal Appeals said ~bg the full pardon 

of a~ppellant in the last conviction the final judgmentwas 

w~iped out "to gether with all its dependent consequences ' 

and that 'the basis and foundation of the right of the s&e 

to have him sentenced was ent?relg gone." 

The judgment against Sanders was reversed, and the 

cause ordered dismissed. 

We quote from the case of United States v. Athena 

Armory, 35 Ga. 344, 24 Feds. Cas. 878, 884: 

"A pardon is an act of mercy flowing from the 

fountain of bounty and grace. Its effect, when it is 

a full pardon, is to- obliterate every stain which 

the law attached to the offender; to place him where 

he stood before he committed'the pardoned offense, 

and to free him from the penalties and forfeitures 

to which the law had subjected his personal property; 

to acquit him of all penalties annexed to the offense 

for which he obtafns his pardon.' 

You are advised, in the 1Fght of the above quotations 

and citations of authority, that if full and uncondltIona1 pardons are granted', with restoratfon of citfzenship, that inmates of the Texas Prison System, after their release, are 

eliglble.to take the examination for, and upon meeting all 

other'requirements of the Board of Hairdressing and Cosmetology, 

to practice the profession or follow the occupation of coametologiata. Without such pardon, the converse Is true, and 

the secttons of the statute we set out above would constitute 

a bar. 
Texas Prison Board, page 5 o-2359 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GJNERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/Benjkmln WoocMll 

Benjamln Woodtill 

Assistant 

BW:BBB:wc 

APPROVED SEP 17, 1940 

s/Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Approved Oplnlon Committee By s/BWB Chalrman