Does a Texas justice of the peace have to keep a paper copy of an electronic court docket?

Plain-English summary

The Harris County Attorney asked a practical records-management question: if a justice of the peace chooses to keep the court's criminal docket on a computer, does the justice also have to keep a printed copy on paper? The Attorney General concluded the answer is no.

Article 45.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires justices of the peace and municipal court judges to keep a docket of the criminal proceedings in their courts, listing things like the style of each case, the offense charged, the warrant dates, when and how the trial was held, any jury verdict, the judgment and sentence, any motion for new trial and its outcome, whether an appeal was taken, and how the judgment was enforced. A 1989 amendment added subsection (b), which says the docket information "may be processed and stored by the use of electronic data processing equipment, at the discretion of the justice of the peace or the municipal court judge." The opinion found no statute, no constitutional rule, and no common-law principle that requires a justice who stores the docket electronically to also keep a simultaneous hard copy. The statute simply does not say a printed copy must be kept.

The opinion put the 1989 amendment in context. Historically, a docket was understood as a single bound, printed book of entries, and an older civil rule had even told clerks to keep the docket "in a well bound book." Adding electronic storage in 1989 was meant to give justices the benefit of modern technology. Tellingly, the same 1989 bill repealed former article 45.14, which had required each justice of the peace to file a certified paper transcript of the docket with the district clerk for the grand jury at each term of district court. The Attorney General read the repeal as a sign of general legislative intent to move away from paper, and concluded it would be consistent with that intent to hold that justices need not keep hard copies of an electronically stored criminal docket.

The opinion also pointed to two related statutory schemes without finding that either changed the result. The Court Administration Act places administrative control of the judicial branch in the Texas Supreme Court and lets the court adopt uniform docket rules, but the court had not adopted any for justice courts. The Local Government Records Act authorizes electronic storage of local government records "in addition to or instead of" paper source documents, and makes the State Library and Archives Commission responsible for rules on electronic storage, backups, and public access; justice of the peace offices and their records are covered by that act, but the commission had not yet adopted formal rules for justice court criminal dockets either. The bottom line: the criminal docket may be kept electronically in addition to or in lieu of hard-copy originals, and the justice is not required to simultaneously maintain printed copies. The one thing that does not change with the medium is public access. Whether the docket is on paper or in a computer, the court has to make appropriate provision for the public's right to inspect it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. The Code of Criminal Procedure docket provisions, the Court Administration Act, and the Local Government Records Act have all been amended since 1992, and the Supreme Court and the State Library and Archives Commission may since have adopted records rules that did not exist when this opinion issued, so confirm current law and current records-retention rules before relying on anything described here.

Background and statutory framework

Article 45.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure required justices of the peace and municipal court judges to maintain a docket of criminal proceedings, and authorized electronic data processing for that function: "The information in the docket may be processed and stored by the use of electronic data processing equipment, at the discretion of the justice of the peace or the municipal court judge." Code Crim. Proc. art. 45.13(b). A docket is generally a formal record containing brief entries of court proceedings, Black's Law Dictionary 431 (5th ed. 1979), and a docket entry has been described as a memorandum for the convenience of a trial court and its staff. See Energo International Corp. v. Modern Industrial Heating, Inc., 722 S.W.2d 149 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1986, no writ); Gainesville Oil & Gas Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Texas, 795 S.W.2d 826 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1990, no writ). Although a docket entry is part of the court record, Petroleum Equipment Financial Corp. v. First National Bank of Fort Worth, 622 S.W.2d 152 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.), it is not part of the judgment in a case, Gainesville Oil & Gas, 795 S.W.2d 826, and a docket entry, while it may supply facts in some situations, cannot be used to contradict or prevail over the final judicial order, N-S-W Corp. v. Snell, 561 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. 1977). Article 45.13(a) specifies the items the judge must enter for each trial: the style of the action; the nature of the offense charged; the date the warrant was issued and the return on it; when the examination or trial was had, and if a trial, whether by jury or by the judge; the jury's verdict, if any; the judgment and sentence; any motion for new trial and the decision on it; whether an appeal was taken; and the time and manner in which the judgment and sentence were enforced.

The opinion found no express statutory requirement that an electronically stored criminal docket also be kept on printed media, and no constitutional or common-law principle requiring a hard copy. Subsection (b) of article 45.13 was enacted in 1989, Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 499, § 1; before then, article 45.13 imposed no specific requirement about the medium of the docket. Historically the docket was understood as a single printed and bound record, see former Tex. R. Civ. P. 26 (Vernon 1979) (court clerk shall "keep a court docket in a well bound book"); Black's Law Dictionary 431. The 1989 addition was intended to offer justices the advantages of modern technology. The same bill also repealed former article 45.14, which had required each justice of the peace, on the first day of each term of district court, to file with the district clerk a certified transcript of the docket of all criminal cases examined or tried since the last term, for delivery to the grand jury foreman. Acts 1965, 59th Leg., ch. 722 (formerly Code Crim. Proc. art. 45.14, repealed by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 499, § 2). The opinion read the repeal as indicating general legislative intent to move away from printed media, consistent with concluding that justices need not simultaneously maintain hard copies of electronically stored criminal dockets.

The opinion noted two related schemes. The Court Administration Act places supervisory and administrative control over the judicial branch in the Supreme Court of Texas, Gov't Code § 74.021, and authorizes the court to adopt administrative rules including a uniform dockets policy, id. § 74.024(c)(7), which remain effective unless disapproved by the Legislature, id. § 74.024(d); but the court had not adopted formal rules governing docket maintenance in justice courts. The Local Government Records Act, chapters 201 to 205 of the Local Government Code, authorizes electronic storage of local government record data "in addition to or instead of source documents in paper or other media, subject to the requirements of this chapter and rules adopted under it," Local Gov't Code § 205.002, and makes the State Library and Archives Commission responsible for rules on electronic storage, backups, and public access, id. § 205.003. Justice of the peace offices and their records are subject to the act. Id. §§ 201.003(7) (a "local government" includes all district and precinct offices of a county), 201.003(8) ("local government record" includes any document or electronic medium created or received by a local government or its officers); see also Attorney General Opinion JM-1224 (1990). The commission had not adopted formal rules for justice court criminal dockets either. Accordingly, the opinion concluded the criminal docket in a justice court may be maintained electronically in addition to or in lieu of hard-copy originals, Code Crim. Proc. art. 45.13(b); Local Gov't Code § 205.001, subject to the requirement that, however kept, appropriate provision be made for public inspection rights, see Gov't Code § 27.004(a); Open Records Decision No. 25 (1974).

Common questions

Can a Texas justice of the peace keep court records only on a computer?
Under this opinion, yes, for the criminal docket. The Attorney General concluded that article 45.13 lets a justice of the peace store the criminal docket electronically in addition to or in lieu of paper, and does not require keeping a simultaneous printed copy.

Why did the opinion say paper was not required?
Because no statute, constitutional rule, or common-law principle required it. The opinion also pointed to the 1989 law that authorized electronic storage and, in the same bill, repealed the old requirement to file paper docket transcripts with the district court, reading both as a move away from paper.

Does going electronic affect the public's right to see the docket?
No. The opinion stressed that whether the docket is on paper or electronic, the court must still make appropriate provisions to implement the public's right to inspect it.

Were there any rules specifically governing electronic justice court dockets?
Not at the time. The opinion noted that neither the Texas Supreme Court (under the Court Administration Act) nor the State Library and Archives Commission (under the Local Government Records Act) had yet adopted formal rules for the maintenance of justice court criminal dockets.

Citations

• Code Crim. Proc. art. 45.13(a), (b)
• Code Crim. Proc. art. 45.14 (former; repealed by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 499, § 2)
• Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 499, §§ 1, 2; Acts 1965, 59th Leg., ch. 722
• Gov't Code § 74.021, § 74.024(c)(7), (d) (Court Administration Act)
• Local Gov't Code §§ 201.003(7), (8), 205.001, 205.002, 205.003 (Local Government Records Act)
• Gov't Code § 27.004(a)
• former Tex. R. Civ. P. 26 (Vernon 1979)
• Energo International Corp. v. Modern Industrial Heating, Inc., 722 S.W.2d 149 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1986, no writ)
• Gainesville Oil & Gas Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Texas, 795 S.W.2d 826 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1990, no writ)
• Petroleum Equipment Financial Corp. v. First National Bank of Fort Worth, 622 S.W.2d 152 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
• N-S-W Corp. v. Snell, 561 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. 1977)
• Attorney General Opinion JM-1224 (1990); Open Records Decision No. 25 (1974)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/dan-morales/dm-0139
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1992/dm0139.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, and several case names and citations were degraded in the scan; they are corrected here against the reporter citations. The linked PDF is authoritative.

Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas

DAN MORALES
ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 8, 1992

Honorable Mike Driscoll
Harris County Attorney
1001 Preston, Suite 634
Houston, Texas 77002-1891

Opinion No. DM-139

Re: Whether a justice of the peace is required to maintain a hard copy of the criminal docket if he or she has chosen to maintain such records electronically (RQ-66)

Dear Mr. Driscoll:

Article 45.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires justices of the peace and municipal court judges to maintain a docket of criminal proceedings in their respective courts and authorizes the use of electronic data processing equipment to perform this function:

  The information in the docket may be processed and stored by the use of electronic data processing equipment, at the discretion of the justice of the peace or the municipal court judge.

Code Crim. Proc. art. 45.13(b). You ask whether a justice of the peace who elects to process and store the court's criminal docket electronically is required to maintain a printed copy of the docket.

A docket is generally described as a formal record containing brief entries of the proceedings in a court of justice. Black's Law Dictionary 431 (5th ed. 1979). A docket entry has been characterized as a memorandum made for the convenience of a trial court and its staff. See Energo Int'l Corp. v. Modern Indus. Heating, 722 S.W.2d 149 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1986, no writ); Gainesville Oil & Gas Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Texas, 795 S.W.2d 826 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1990, no writ).[1] Article 45.13 provides that a justice of the peace or municipal court judge shall enter into the docket "the proceedings in each trial had before him," including the following information:

  1. The style of the action;

  2. The nature of the offense charged;

  3. The date the warrant was issued and the return made thereon;

  4. The time when the examination or trial was had, and if a trial, whether it was by a jury or by himself;

  5. The verdict of the jury, if any;

  6. The judgment and sentence of the court;

  7. Motion for new trial, if any, and the decision thereon;

  8. If an appeal was taken; and

  9. The time when, and the manner in which, the judgment and sentence was enforced.

Code Crim. Proc. art. 45.13(a).

[Footnote 1: Although a docket entry constitutes part of the court record, Petroleum Equip. Fin. Corp. v. First Nat'l Bank of Fort Worth, 622 S.W.2d 152 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.), it does not constitute part of the judgment in a particular case. Gainesville Oil & Gas, 795 S.W.2d 826. A docket entry may supply facts in certain situations, but it cannot be used to contradict or prevail over the final judicial order. N-S-W Corp. v. Snell, 561 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. 1977). Thus, when a docket entry . . . [the remainder of this footnote was cut off at the page break in the scanned source].]

We find no express statutory requirement that the electronically stored criminal docket of a justice court be simultaneously maintained on printed media, and we are aware of no principle of constitutional law or common law which would require creation of a "hard copy" of the docket under these circumstances. Article 45.13 fails to stipulate whether a printed copy must be kept.

Subpart (b) of article 45.13 was enacted in 1989. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 499, § 1, at 1684-85. Prior to that time, article 45.13 imposed no specific requirement regarding the medium in which the docket was maintained. Historically, however, it was generally understood that the docket was a single record, printed and bound, containing the entries of the proceedings in the court. See former Tex. R. Civ. P. 26 (Vernon 1979) (providing that court clerk shall "keep a court docket in a well bound book"); Black's Law Dictionary 431 (defining "docket" to mean, inter alia, "[a] book containing an entry in brief of all the important acts done in court in the conduct of each case"). The 1989 addition of subpart (b) of article 45.13 was obviously intended to offer justices of the peace the advantages of modern technology, a trend which is evident in other areas of court administration. See infra note 2.

We note that the bill adding subpart (b) also repealed article 45.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which previously provided:

  At each term of the district court, each justice of the peace shall, on the first day of the term of said court for their county, file with the clerk of said court a certified transcript of the docket kept by such justice, of all criminal cases examined or tried before him since the last term of such district court; and such clerk shall immediately deliver such transcript to the foreman of the grand jury.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., ch. 722, at 317 (formerly Code Crim. Proc. art. 45.14, repealed by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 499, § 2). We think the repeal of article 45.14 indicates general legislative intent to move away from printed or paper media to record the proceedings of justice courts. It would be consistent with that general intent to conclude that justices of the peace are not required to simultaneously maintain hard copies of their electronically stored criminal dockets.[2]

We note other statutes that are relevant to your inquiry. The Court Administration Act places supervisory and administrative control over the judicial branch of state government in the Supreme Court of Texas. Gov't Code § 74.021. The court is authorized to adopt rules of administration for the court system including rules relating to a uniform dockets policy. Id. § 74.024(c)(7). The rules remain in effect unless and until disapproved by the legislature. Id. § 74.024(d). To date, the supreme court has not adopted formal rules governing the maintenance of dockets in justice courts.[3]

In addition, the Local Government Records Act, chapters 201 to 205 of the Local Government Code, authorizes the electronic storage of local government record data "in addition to or instead of source documents in paper or other media, subject to the requirements of this chapter and rules adopted under it." Local Gov't Code § 205.002 (emphasis added). The State Library and Archives Commission is responsible for adopting rules governing the electronic storage of local government records, including standards and procedures regarding the generation of backup or preservation copies of electronically stored records and public access to such records. See id. § 205.003. The office of the justice of the peace and its records are subject to the act. Id. §§ 201.003(7) ("local government" includes all district and precinct offices of a county), 201.003(8) ("local government record" includes, inter alia, any document or electronic medium created or received by a local government or any of its officers); see also Attorney General Opinion JM-1224 (1990) (act applies to electronic storage of county, district, and precinct records by county data processing department). The State Library and Archives Commission has to date not adopted formal rules governing the maintenance of the criminal dockets of justice courts.

Accordingly, we conclude that the criminal docket in a justice court may be maintained electronically in addition to or in lieu of hard copy originals. Code Crim. Proc. art. 45.13(b); Local Gov't Code § 205.001. Whether the docket is kept on paper or maintained electronically, appropriate provisions must be made to implement public rights of inspection. See Gov't Code § 27.004(a); Open Records Decision No. 25 (1974).

                               SUMMARY

      A justice of the peace may maintain the criminal docket in the justice court electronically in addition to or in lieu of printed paper media. The justice is not required to simultaneously maintain printed paper copies of the electronically stored docket.

                                            DAN MORALES
                                            Attorney General of Texas

WILL PRYOR
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

RENEA HICKS
Special Assistant Attorney General

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON
Chair, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Steve Aragón
Assistant Attorney General