The Attorney General of Texas 

November 1, 1977 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

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 ask whether it is "unconstitutional for the Texas 

Legislature to attempt to divest a Constitutional County 

Court of jurisdiction in civil, criminal, juvenile and 

probate matters." Specifically, your question refers to 

House Bill 2147, Acts 1977, 65th Leg., ch. 692, at 1736. 

This bill creates the County Court at Law of Reeves County 

and gives said court 

jurisdiction in all matters and causes, 

civil, criminal, juvenile, and probate, 

original and appellate, over which, by 

the general laws of the state, the county 

court of the county would have jurisdiction. 

Sec. 2. Under section 3 of this act, the County Court of 

Reeves County "shall have no jurisdiction, civil, criminal, 

juvenile, or probate, original or appellate." We must 

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 22 of 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 

or part of its civil or criminal jurisdiction, or both, and 

the jurisdiction withdrawn may be placed on other courts. 

Regian v. Sowell, 534 S.W.Zd 175, 176 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Waco 

1976, no writ); Chapman v. State, 16 Tex. App. 76 (1884); 

Mora v. State, 9 Tex. 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 the power 

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 it upon the district 

court of such county. 

Muench v. Oppenheimer, 26 S.W. 496 (Tex. 1894). Moreover, the 

Legislature may change the appellate as well 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 5 of the Texas Constitution. - See 

also Attorney General Opinion WW-450 (1958). 

Although the jurisdiction of "juvenile courts" is governed 

by section 51.04 of the Family Code, such courts are created by 

the Legislature under the authority of article 5, section 1 of 

the Texas Constitution which provides that the Legislature 

may establish such other courts as it 

may deem necessary and prescribe the 

jurisdiction and organization thereof, 

and may conform the jurisdiction of 

the district and other inferior courts 

thereto. 

(Emphasis added). The list of courts available for designation 

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 is within 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 1 of the Texas Constitution, see 

In re Hoskins, 198 S.W.Zd 460 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Amarillo - 

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

1946, writ ref'd n.r.e.), we are of the opinion that the Legislature may divest a county court of its jurisdiction in juvenile 

matters. Tex. Const. art. 5, 8 1. See Attorney General Opinion 

H-325 (1974). We note, however, thathe judge of the Reeves 

County Court at Law must qualify under § 54.01(d) of the Family 

Code in order to pass on juvenile matters. 

Finally, we must also consider the constitutionality of 

divesting the Reeves County Court of jurisdiction in probate 

matters. Although article 5, section 16 of the Texas Constitution states that the county court shall have the general jurisdiction of a probate court, we believe that article 5, section 

8 controls the probate jurisdiction question raised by House 

Bill 2147. That constitutional provision, as adopted in 1973, 

provides in part: 

legislature shall also conform the 

jurisdiction of the other courts to 

such change. 

Tex. Const. art. 5, § 8. (Emphasis added). In our opinion, 

the express language of the constitutional provision empowers 

the Legislature to constitutionally 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 some part of the bill unconstitutional. 

SUMMARY 

House Bill 2147, which abolishes the 

civil, criminal, juvenile, and probate 

jurisdiction of the Reeves County Court, 

is constitutional. 

-Very truly yours, 

r.%&.4* 

c ,/ Attorney General of Texas 

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

o* 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

jst 

p. 4431