The opinion
The Attorney General of Texas
November 1, 1977
JOHN L. HILL
Attorney General
Honorable Walter M. Holcombe Opinion No. H-1082
District Attorney
143rd Judicial District Re: Constitutionality
324 S. Cypress of Reeves County Court
Pecos, Texas 79772 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 juris-
diction.
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, di-
minish or change the civil and criminal
jurisdiction of County Courts; and in
such change of jurisdiction, the Legis-
lature shall also conform the jurisdic-
tion 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the jurisdiction withdrawn may be placed on other courts.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 juris-
diction 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 Legis-
lature 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 Constitu-
tion states that the county court shall have the general juris-
diction 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