The Honorable Tom Hamilton 

District Attorney 

64th Judicial District 

Halt County Courthouse 

Pla inv icw, Texas 

Opinion No. M- 872 

Re: Distribution of fines collected 

in District Court for violation 

of the Texas Motor Carrier 

Act, Article 911b, V. C. S., 

and Article 1690b, V. P. C. 

Dear Mr. Hamilton: 

You have requested an opinion of this office as to the disposition of fines 

assessed and collected under the Texas Motor Carrier Act, collectively 

Article 911b, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, and Articles 1690b and 1690f, Vernon’s 

Penal Code. 

There are a variety of fines or penalties which may be assessed and 

collected for violations of the Texas Motor Carrier Act. Subsection (a) of 

Article 1690b and Article 1690f. Vernon’s Penal Code, provide for fines to be 

assessed as misdemeanor criminal penalties. Subsections (b) and (c) of 

Article 1690b set out the civil sanctions imposed for violations of the Texas 

Motor Carrier Act. While your letter refers to only those fines collected as 

civil penalties we think that under Section 17, Subsection (c), of Article 911b, 

the disposition of all fines and penalties should be the same. This Section of 

the Motor Carrier Act provides as is here pertinent: 

1, 

. all fines and penalties collected under the provisions 

of this Act shall be payable to the State Treasurer at Austin, 

and credited to the fund to be known and designated as the 

‘Motor Carrier Fund’, which fund is appropriated for the purpose of carrying out the terms of this Act. .” 

Quite clearly by this language the Legislature has specifically spelled out 

the disposition and purpose of fines collected under the Texas Motor Carrier 

Act. WC feel that this legislative mandate should be followed and should 

-4251- 
Honorable Tom Hamilton, page 2 (M-872) 

control here. just as was held in Attorney General’s Opinion No. M-560 

(1970) over the more gcnernl provisions of Articlc 1007, Vernon’s Code of 

Criminal Procedure. 

Several opinions have been issued by this office on the subject of retention of fees or commissions by local officials out of”fines or penalties collected for the State by such official. Attorney General Opinion No. O-48 

(1939) considered the question of the responsibility of the Justice of the Peace 

to deduct 10 per cent of the fines collected under Article 1690b and pay that 

amount into the officer’s salary fund of his county. This opinion concluded 

that under Article 950 of the 1925 Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 

3912e, Sections 3, 4 and 5, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, a Justice of the Peace 

had the duty to deduct 10 per cent of fines collected under Article 1690b and 

pay the same into the officer’s salary fund of his county and, further, that 

upon his failure to accomplish this the same amount could be deducted from 

the salary of such officer. 

Attorney General Opinion No. O-360 (1939) considered the question of 

what disposition should be made of fines collected by a Justice of the Peace 

for violations of the Motor Carrier Act and merely concluded that all fines 

collected for violation of the Motor Carrier Act should be deposited with 

the State Treasurer at Austin after deducting commissions as allowed by 

law. The “commissions as allowed by law” referred to in this opinion were 

apparently those provided in Article 950 of the 1925 Code of Criminal Procedure, namely, 10 per cent and 5 per cent to be retained by the District 

Attorney and District Clerk, respectively, out of fines collected for the 

State by such officers. Later in the same year Attorney General Opinion 

No. O-1258 (1939) was issued considering the same question and concluded 

that Section 17 (c) of Article 911b directly answered the question with the 

result that “all fines and penalties which are collected for violations of the 

provisions of this Act must be paid to the State Treasurer at Austin and 

credited to the Motor Carrier Fund.” 

Finally, 4ttorney General Opinion No. M-560 (1970) considered the 

right, by virtue of Article 1007 of the 1965 Code of Criminal Procedure, of 

a District Attorney to retain 10 per cent of civil penalties collected by him in 

suits brought under Article 7621d- 1, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. Article 950 

(referred to in the two preceding opinions) was the predecessor of Article 

1007 referred to in this opinion. This latter opinion concluded that Article 

7621d-1 contained specific provisions dealing with the disposition of fines 

-4252- 
, 

I 

Honorable Tom Hamilton, page 3 (M- 872) 

collected under that Article and, thcrcfore, controlled over the more general 

provisions of Article 1007 of the Code of Criminal Proccdurc. Therefore, a 

District Attorney did not have the right to retain a perccntagc of moneys 

collected as civil penaltics on behalf of the State. 

We therefore follow and affirm Attorney General Opinions Nos.O-1258 and 

also M-560, wherein the applicable principle of statutory construction was 

declared that the specific prevails over a general statute, and we overrule 

Opinions Nos.O-48 and O-360, r-caching the conclusion that neither the District Attorney nor the District Clerk may retain any percentage of the moneys 

collected as fines, forfeitures, or penalties recovered in actions brought for 

violation of the Texas Motor Carrier Act. 

SUMMARY 

Article 911b, Section 17 (c), Vernon’s Civil Statutes, 

requires that all fines and penalties collected thereunder 

shall be paid to the State Treasurer, and contains the 

specific provisions dealing with the proper distribution or 

allocation of fines and penalties collected under the provisions of the Texas Motor Carrier Act; this provision 

controls over the more general provisions of Article 1007, 

Vernon’s Code of Criminal Procedure. 

Neither the District Attorney nor the District Clerk may 

retain a percentage of any penalty or fine collected in any 

suit brought on behalf of the State of Texas for violations of 

the Texas Motor Carrier Act. 

Attorney General Opinions Nos. O-1258 and M-560 are 

affirmed and Nos. O-48 and O-3 

,P 

re overruled. 

Prepared by James M. Mabry 

Assistant Attorney General 

. 

-4253- 
Honornblc Tom Hamilton, pngc 4 (M- 872) 

A PPROVEI): 

OPINION COM-&lITTE E 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman 

James H. Cowden 

Ben Harrison 

James Quick 

S. J. Aronson 

MEADE F. GRIFFIN 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Assistant 

-4254-