OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Eon. lhrt rora, Aaalln1atrator 

Texex~nLl uor Control 

, Rxw 

Roard 

bar Sir: 

This will aokn 

ertlon 30. 9 therein 

been comlotea o? a 

ext preordlng the fllby the Tmi8 Liquor Control 

that tb ap~~ioont on Kar 19, 

oanrloted in the DLtriot Court railm6 to stop and render aid 

0.00, to whlOh aotion of the Dipappeal had been filed In the Court 

ary 16, 

peals 05 L'ay p9, 1939. On Frbm1958 thn ocntiotlon wa(LLI afilmed by the 

Court of Crlalrial Appeals and appellant~r aotloa 

ior rcheartlrcr wa@ overruled on Maroh 0 lPl% 

an6 a mandata ef the Court or Crlmina 38 

raa issued on April 1, 1936. 

lrppsalr 

HJ*xAI)*y I. ,cd .* cl3*m,,.n . . 

. . . . . . . Y-Y-.. ^_. - 
,4: 

Rcn. Dart ?ord, I’aep 2 

The lioeneee has been olted to a pear nad 

rhou ouuae why tha license rhould not t e oanaelled for the rearon that in her epplloetion 

ior u beer retall lloenae dated koe~bbr 12, 

lQS9 ln atamer to Neetioa Fo. 9 the lloeneee 

npmsented that ehe had not been conrioted ot 

a relonp althln two yemro next preoedlng the 

rlllnff of the l pplIaatlon, wherear in truth 

end in lad the lloeneoe had been oomloted 

a6 above set out. 

*16 the fiat&l OOUViOtlon of the c0Ul-t Of 

CrlmInel Appeala, it oominq wlthln a twc year 

period next preoedlng the rinnr: 0r the a plloetlan, euoh 8 oontlotlon ae to warrent t to 

oancellation of the lloenee by the ~dnlnletretor ror the reneone stated?” 

You edviee that the holder cf the retail beer 

lioenee involved ln thin Inquiry wee oanvlated In the 

DIetriot Court on by 19, 1937. Thereafter, the oa.80 

me duly appealed, oonsldered and afflrzxtd. isitar the 

efflmanoe, the hurt a? Crlnlual Appeals overruled appellant’s notion for rehearing end issued its mandate on 

Aprfl 1, 1930. 

&-tic lo 667-5 ) Yenal Gx3s ar %xcLe 1925, reta 

aut la detail the requleltee or the applloetlon rhloh shall 

be ills4 by u pereon deeirlnp, e retail berr license. Subdlvlelon (1) thereof, under heedln~ ‘%anufaoturer” lllcerlae applloable to a rota11 beer dealer, provides, enong 

other things, that the appl?oant rhow “that he hee not been 

oonrloted cf P felony within tuo-te) yeere Immedlately pre06aing the ruing of euoh applloutloa,* A8 noted frcrn the 

opinion request, hereinabove qutiod, the lioensee inrolved 

herein made such appliaatlon on Deoe?sber 12, 1939, and the 

lloenss ue~ Ienued by the %erd oa Deoezber 27, 1939, rSloh 

dates were leea than two years after the mendate of the 

court 0r C~LUIM~ dipppedlm. Tour opinion request reeolvee 

Itself lata the proposltlon of whether or not the *oomlotIonW rererred to In the epplicatlon hnd rsfsrenoe to the 

c 

ud(gaent, and sentence In the trial oourt or to the date of 

he rlnel oonviotlon In the appellete court. 

&tlolt~ 8243, Code or Crlntlnal Procedure or Texa8, 

roes, prmldee: 
Hon. 8ert Ford, i’age 3 

‘*The erraot of an appeal 1s to auepena 

and arroat all further promboding la tha 

oaae in the oourt la whloh the oonvlotion 

uat~ had, until the jud@nont ot the appellate 

court la reoelved b the oourt iron whloh the 

l ppeel waa taken. f II 

notloe of appeal ha 

aaaea where, arter 

boon gltea, tba reoord 

or any portion theroot la loat or destroyed, 

it say be aubr:tltutad in the lwtar oourt, if 

aald oourt be then in reoalon; and, when 80 

aubctltuted, the trmaorlpt may be greparetl 

and rant up aa in other oaaea. In or188 the 

oourt from whloh the appeal wua tdcea be not 

then in eeaalon, the eppellato ocurt ahall 

postpone the canalderatlon or suoh appeal until the next tam. of aald court iroE whloh 

said appeal was taken; and the sold record 

shall be substituted at said tar% as in other 

08868. n 

Umltr auoh atatut6, the dofondant, posataal~ 

the rl#ti to have hi8 appeal passe@ upon by the aprellute 

QC)UZ%, aaaaot be ccade to autter any ot the punlahmat aaaoesed by the trial court until auoh tlrne as the ap,,pellate 

oourt has aated. 3 ?srto ?raudenbur~, 140 3W 780. 

Artl.ele 4329 of the Revlned 3tatuteo vf !'1880uri, 

provldln~ that, if ti.e charge againat an attorney allege 

a oonvlotloa for un indictable oiianaa, tha oourt shall, 

on the produotlon of the record of comlotim, rewove hk, 

or auapend his trm praotlae without further trial, does 

not authorize his auuptaaion pending e 

rlotio5. State of rel larew 98. Eel8 P 

peel tram the aonSup. Ct. 0r ?ro.), 

87 su 967. 

?he aourt, Ln the oaee of Feo:le vs. Trendwell, 

6 Pac. 686, 15 holdin that ~aantlotionW aa uued In a 

statute providing for dlabemont of an attorney Eeent a 

Vlnal oontiotlonn and that a diabemant aotion brought 

while the qontlotlon was on appeal aald: 

*Xt has been frequently held by thla oourt 

that an appeal rraa a Judgment 0r the iormir 

dlatrlot aourt tc tba aupre60 aourt operated aa 

a sua~tn8lon cif the judgment of the lcmfer aourt 
4 

Hon. Bert irord, Pii@ 4 

for all purposes, Ihnowles v. Inches, 12 Cal. 

2W; Voodbury Y. Hmmn, 13 Cal, 635; People 

v. frlsbla, Et3 Cal. X35,) and by parity of 

reasoning we nust hold that tm appeal from 

the judgmnt of a justice’s oourt to the 

superior oourt haa the same oprratlon and effoot. There la, thererore, no judlJnent or 

the justloe*e court which Is now capable of 

being oarrled Into effeot; end It ia quite 

within the range ot possibilities that the 

judeent entered against the doiendant and 

nav etcmdlna on the justloo’s docket may be 

reversed in the hlp,hwr oourt. 

Tn our opinion, there Is not such a 

final oonvlotlon aaalnst the defendant as the 

law oontemplates to justify his raeoval; and 

we think the proceeding to that end has bean 

prem&urely oamenoed.” 

The suprem Court of %lifornfn in the case of 

In Re Rlcoardl, 189 Pac. tW4, in considering the stetuto 

involved in the ease next hereinabove cited said: 

“In the prooeedlna for dlsbement based 

upon the record of ocnvlotlm, the judgmnt 

which must be pronounced Is one or absolute 

and final dlsbermmt. This dlsbernent 1s net 

an flnoidantl or the conviction of felony or 

~lrdeneanor In the sons8 that such oonvlotlcn 

1~80 taoto remvos the attorney iron his 

offloe, or is a part of the penalty presorlbed by the law for the oifense oi which he 

warn ocntlotrd. It Is a separate and lndo endant thlne; (mm I’oPannay v. Horton, aupra 7 , 

end 1s not In th,e slightest d8greo affectod by 

4 aettlng aside or reversal o,C the judm.ent of 

oc~nvlotlon of felony cr ~lodsramnor. so that 

unless a aonvlotion t&t has beoom final was 

meant, notwlthstanding that the judq.mant 1s 

reversed on appeal for substsntlal reasona, 

as, for lmtanoe, that evidence of guilt of 

an9 offenme is absolutely wantlnrj, or that the 

deiendnnt has not been accordrd a fair trial 
Hon. IIrt Ford, Page 5 

on the nerltr In the lrmrr oouft, the jud@ 

mat of dlsbenent baaed solely on the reoord 0r aonvlotlo:~ et111 relhin8, and the 

attorney oan be restored to hlr orfloe a8 an 

attorney end ooua84llor only %n the 8V6nt 

#at tlm court that ha8 disbarred him 8448 

flt to. grant hi8 applloatlon r0r restoration: 

emethine it 18 aertalnly not owpelled to do 

rolelg beoaure of thr. reversal or setting 

&old4 of the judgmmt of oonvlotlon. nail1 

not do, In reply to th18, to 8ay thnt thie 

oourt would have the poroer to reatore and 

au.=ht to raetbre In such a cam, iz It cannot 

be aaepplled to restore. Unleae the attoonsy 

her the absolute enforoeuble ruht to ba restored a.8 a oono4quenoa Of tha setting aelde 

or reveres1 of the judgment of oonvlotIon-- 

In ether wordr, unlesr the restoration ip80 

raato rollons the eettfq aelde or revcreal 

of the judgnmnt of oonvlotlon--he Is dependent on the areroI~e In hle favor or the 

discretion of this oourt, whloh my or my 

not be In hi8 favor cs he Is loaked upon as 

4 flt or unfit person to prectloe lsw, entirely regardless of the netter cf the oonvlotion. Nor will It do to MI that the rule 

that where a judquent is based on a previous 

judgarent, end the previous Judgmnt lo ZWverwd or set aside, the 84coDd judfflGent met 

be set aside, applIe8 here. If the tern 'convlotlon* aeane, not the final judgment oi Conf 

vlotlon, but simply the rendltlon at a rcrdlot 

of guilty cr a plea of guilty, a8 la the whole 

oontentlon of thore whb lns18t that People v. 

?reedwll, aupra, wan wrongly deolded, the 

ettarney I8 disbarred solely beoause Of the 

rendition of the verdlot or the plea of aullty, 

and those icats, vi%., euoh rend1tlon of verdict 

or plea, remain and constitute the bas18 of 

disbanxmt, whatever be the ultimate reault 

In the oaee. There 84458 to UB to be no anmar 

to the proporltlon that the Judgment of tlnsl 

dirbarnont would mntinus in foree, notwlth8tandim the 8rttin& arid4 or reVerBa of th4 

judment propounded on the oonviotlon of felony 

or mledenean0r. It la unreasonable to assume 

that the Legislature Intended to provide for 
4: 

Hon. Beti ??omY, 1’664 6 

obtelnIaS th lo l beolute and final dlabarmeat of en attorney tbur pena4wntl~ deprlring him of 4 vaiueble property right, 

solely upon 4 oonrlotion that ie not final, 

end rhloh In dua OOure4 Of revi4w 18 ruberquetily deolerwl Invalid, In tha abosooe of 

80me provi8ion ror reetoration 48 ruetter 0r 

oourse upon the eonrlotlon belnu sot a8ide. 

The 8tatute Mces Wm reoord of oonviatlan’ 

the basis of tllabernent end oonclusl~4 evl-. 

donor thereon. The84 worde in this OOnneOtion Imply eomthln% other then the mre 

ve~4Iot of a jury, which may be raeated 

eithar by the trial ocurt or en appeal, a4 

entirely without support Ln the evldenoe. 

Under our settled praotloe ot many years, 

they arc oonsldered a8 referring to the Judemoot pronounocd by the trial oourt Upton a 

mnvlotlon, end llkewlee, under ou- doclelone, 

tho etetute 14 eboepted a8 oontcPepleting a 

judment that he4 beoone flnr~l....~ 

The 5upens Court of Florida, In tha cnee or 

In 2.4 Advisory CpLnion to the Governor, 78 So. 013, eaid: 

":%ile an offioer my be 8u8pndOd rroE 

orrice 'rOr the cormlesion of any felony' the 

offlae Is not 'deemed v40antq under teotlon 

290 of ta:a General Statute@, esoept upon 'eontlctlon f, and a convlotlon la not oparatlve 

~h114 n 8~p0r84d4a8 ii3 dr40tir4.~ 

Althou@ mob authority oen be Tound to the contrary we bclleve the euthoritlee herein elted hepresent 

the great welEht OS authority In the Onltad States. In 

view OS 8uah holdinqs,.ws are o? the opinion that “eonrioted of a telonyn a8 used In the etatute here uhdor oonslderetlon mean8 a fin41 oonrietlon. Harinq 40 oonoluded, 

It neoaeaerlly rolluws thet the 1lorn8ee Ihvolvsd herein 

was oouvlatad a4 of the date of the lasurnce of the mandate 

by the Crux-t o? Crlmlnel a::peel8. 

m9 next turn our attention to the question 0r 

the rlcht of the &mrtI-to oanoel the llosnse of lio4n844. 

Artiolo 6670&9 of the Penal Code provides that 
Hon. Bert Ford, Pap3 7 

the Board ahall hare power and authority to canoe1 the 

lloenso o? auy ,person authorized to ml1 beer (aftor 

notloo and hearing) for the various roa6oIw therein aot 

out. One or the 

In rubdIrIsIon (g 7 

rounds for OanosllatIon, as set forth 

thereof, I8 the caklnu of any falsr 

or untrue rtateaent in hi8 applioation. ‘&I oonolude that 

tha Jlosneaa war ooavloted within two year8 next precedIng,the makIng Of ruoh applfoatfon, 43iVilM ri8* tC th@ 

rluht or rorreltum of her lloense.