# TheAttorney General ofTexas
November 1, 1977
JOHN L.HILL AttorneyGeneral

Honorable Walter M. Holcombe

District Attorney 143rd Judicial District 324 S. Cypress Pecos, Texas 79772 Opinion No. H-1082
Re: Constitutionality of Reeves County Court at Law.
Dear Mr. Holcombe:
You askwhether it is "unconstitutional for the Texas Legislature toattempt todivest aConstitutional County Court of jurisdiction in civil, criminal, juvenile and probate matters." Specifically, your question refers to House Bill 2147,Acts 1977, 65thLeg., ch. 692, at 1736. This bill creates the County Court at Law of Reeves County and gives said court

jurisdiction inallmatters and causes, civil, criminal, juvenile, and probate, original and appellate, overwhich, by the general laws of the state, the county court of the county would have jurisdiction.
Sec. 2. Under section 3of this act, theCounty Court of Reeves County "shall have no jurisdiction, civil, criminal, juvenile, orprobate, original or appellate." Wemust therefore determine the constitutionality of divesting the Reeves County Court of jurisdiction in civil, criminal, juvenile, and probate matters. With regard to civil and criminal jurisdiction, article 5, section 22of the Texas Constitution provides:

The Legislature shall have power, by local or general law, to increase, diminish or change the civil and criminal jurisdiction of County Courts; and in such change of jurisdiction, the Legislature shall also conform the jurisdiction of the other courts to such change.

P. 4428, ‘

.

Honorable Walter M. Holcombe -Page 2 (H-1082)

In interpreting this section, Texas courts have consistently held that the Legislature may divest the county court of all orpart of its civil or criminal jurisdiction, orboth, and the jurisdiction withdrawn may beplaced on other courts. Regian v. Sowell, 534 S.W.Zd 175, 176 (Tex.Civ.App. --Waco 1976, nowrit); Chapman v. State, 16Tex.App. 76 (1884); Mora v. State, 9Tex.App. 406, 407 (1880). The Supreme Court of Texas has upheld legislative power under article 5, section 22 stating that it

expressly gave the legislature thepower to change the jurisdiction of the county courts, and to confirm [sic]the jurisdiction of other courts to such change. The latter section clearly empowered the legislature to take away the jurisdiction of the county court of any particular county, and to confer itupon the district court of such county. Muench v. Oppenheimer, 26 S.W. 496 (Tex.1894). Moreover, the Legislature may change the appellate aswell as the original jurisdiction of county courts in civil and criminal matters. Kubish v. State, 84 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex.Crim. App. 1935); Ex parte Bennett, 211 S.W. 934 (Tex.Crim.App. 1919). In short, the Legislature may constitutionally divest a county court of its civil and criminal jurisdiction, original or appellate, under section 22, article 5of the Texas Constitution. See - alsoAttorney General Opinion WW-450 (1958). Although the jurisdiction of "juvenile courts" isgoverned by section 51.04 of the Family Code, such courts are created by the Legislature under the authority of article 5, section 1of the Texas Constitution which provides that the Legislature

may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary andprescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof, andmay conform the jurisdiction of thedistrict and other inferior courts thereto. (Emphasisadded). The list of courts available fordesignation as "juvenile courts" includes both county courts and county courts at law. Family Code 5 51.04(b), (c). Since the Reeves County Court at Law iswithin the class of courts which may be designated as juvenile courts and since the jurisdiction of a juvenile court comes from an act of the Legislature acting pursuant to article 5, section 1of the Texas Constitution, see In reHoskins, 198 S.W.Zd 460 (Tex.Civ.App. --Amarillo -

p. 4429Honorable Walter M. Holcombe -Page 3 (H-lOB2)

1946,writ ref'd n.r.e.), we are of the opinion that the Legislaturemay divest a county court of its jurisdiction in juvenile matters. Tex. Const. art. 5, 8 1. SeeAttorney General Opinion H-325 (1974). We note, however, thathe judge of the Reeves County Court at Lawmust qualify under § 54.01(d) of the Family Code inorder topass on juvenile matters. Finally, wemust also consider the constitutionality of divesting theReeves County Court of jurisdiction inprobate matters. Although article 5, section 16of the Texas Constitution states that the county court shall have the general jurisdiction of aprobate court, we believe that article 5, section 8controls theprobate jurisdiction question raised by House Bill 2147. That constitutional provision, as adopted in 1973, provides inpart:

legislature shall also conform the jurisdiction of the other courts to such change.
Tex. Const. art. 5, § 8. (Emphasisadded). Inour opinion, the express language of the constitutional provision empowers the Legislature toconstitutionally divest a county court of probate jurisdiction and transfer such jurisdiction to another court. Since we have found House Bill 2147 constitutional with regard to the jurisdiction questions you raised, we need not address your second question which was posited on our finding somepart of thebill unconstitutional.
SUMMARY
House Bill 2147,which abolishes the civil, criminal, juvenile, andprobate jurisdiction of the Reeves County Court, is constitutional. -Very truly yours, 

# r.%&.4* c ,/Attorney General of Texas

P* 4430Honorable Walter M. Holcombe -Page 4 (H-1082)



# o*
DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee jst

p. 4431