Can the Justice Court Technology Fund pay for a constable's computer or training?

TX AG Opinion GA-0560: Can the Justice Court Technology Fund pay for a constable?

Plain-English summary

Counties collect a fee from defendants convicted of misdemeanors in justice court, and that money goes into a Justice Court Technology Fund created under article 102.0173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Jasper County, a justice of the peace asked the commissioners court to buy desktop computers for his office and for the constable serving the same precinct, both paid for out of the Fund. The Jasper County Criminal District Attorney asked the Attorney General whether the Fund could be spent on a computer for a constable and on training for a constable.

The Attorney General started with the statute's plain language. The Fund may be used "only" to finance two things: continuing education and training for justice court judges and clerks about technological enhancements, and the purchase and maintenance of technological enhancements for a justice court, like computer systems, hardware, software, imaging systems, and docket management systems. "Only" means exclusively, so anything outside those two categories is off limits.

On the computer, the requestor argued constables have traditionally been treated as an extension of the justice court. The Attorney General disagreed with that framing. While a constable has duties tied to the justice court (attending court, helping summon juries, serving process), the office of constable is autonomous and constitutionally distinct from the justice of the peace. A constable is elected to his own office, is a peace officer with duties unrelated to the justice court, and exercises his own discretion. So the constable's connection to the court is not enough, by itself, to authorize spending Fund money on the constable. The Attorney General did not entirely rule it out, though: a computer for a constable might in some circumstances serve as a technological enhancement for the justice court, but whether it does in a given case is a fact question for the commissioners court, which administers the Fund, not something the opinion process resolves.

On training, the answer was a flat no. The statute allows training expenditures only for "justice court judges and clerks." A constable is neither a justice of the peace (who serves as the justice court judge) nor a justice court clerk, so the Fund may not pay for a constable's continuing education and training.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2007. 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.

Article 102.0173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the related Government Code and Local Government Code provisions may have been amended since 2007. Confirm current law and any later opinions before relying on this analysis.

Who this opinion affected (as of 2007)

County commissioners courts: The opinion told them the Fund is limited to justice court technological enhancements and judge/clerk training, that they administer the Fund, and that whether a particular constable computer is a justice court enhancement is a fact question for them to decide.

Justices of the peace and justice court clerks: The opinion confirmed they are the proper beneficiaries of Fund-financed technology and training.

Constables: The opinion explained that the Fund could not pay for a constable's training, and that a constable's link to the justice court did not by itself justify buying the constable equipment from the Fund.

Common questions

What can the Justice Court Technology Fund be spent on?
Only two things: continuing education and training for justice court judges and clerks about technological enhancements, and the purchase and maintenance of technological enhancements for a justice court (computers, networks, hardware, software, imaging systems, kiosks, ticket writers, docket management systems).

Can the Fund buy a computer for a constable?
Not just because a constable works with the justice court. The Attorney General concluded a constable is a distinct, autonomous office, so the relationship alone is not enough. A constable computer could qualify only if the commissioners court determines, on the facts, that it serves as a technological enhancement for the justice court.

Can the Fund pay for a constable's training?
No. Training expenditures are limited by statute to justice court judges and clerks, and a constable is neither.

Who decides whether a constable computer counts?
The commissioners court, which administers the Fund, must make that fact determination in the first instance; it is not resolved through an attorney general opinion.

Background and statutory framework

Article 102.0173 requires a commissioners court to establish a justice court technology fund from misdemeanor conviction fees, and subarticle (d) limits its use to financing (1) continuing education and training for justice court judges and clerks regarding technological enhancements and (2) the purchase and maintenance of technological enhancements for a justice court, including computer systems, networks, hardware, software, imaging systems, electronic kiosks, electronic ticket writers, and docket management systems (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.0173(a), (c), (d) (Vernon 2006)). Reading the statute by its plain meaning, the Attorney General treated "only" as exclusive and "finance" as supplying funds, so the Fund reaches just those two purposes (State ex rel. State Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Gonzalez, 82 S.W.3d 322, 327 (Tex. 2002); Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 865 (Tex. 1999); Standard Oil Co. v. State, 142 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Civ. App.-Eastland 1940, writ ref'd); Jordan v. State, 816 S.W.2d 89, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).

A constable has statutory duties tied to the justice court, including attending each justice court in the precinct, helping draw and summon juries, and serving process (Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 86.021(a), (e) (Vernon Supp. 2006); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 62.004(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006), 62.012(b)(2), 62.412(c) (Vernon 2005); Tex. R. Civ. P. 536), and may be an integral part of the judicial process (Byrd v. Woodruff, 891 S.W.2d 689, 707 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1994, writ denied); Merritt v. Harris County, 775 S.W.2d 17, 23 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, writ denied)). But the constable is not equivalent to the justice court (Merritt, 775 S.W.2d at 23; Belcher v. Cassidy Bros. Live-Stock Comm'n Co., 62 S.W. 924, 925-27 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1901, writ denied)). The office is autonomous and constitutionally established, with the constable elected to his own office, exercising discretion, and serving as a peace officer with duties unrelated to the court (Tex. Const. art. V, § 18(a); Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 86.021(a), (e), 86.022 (Vernon 1999); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.12(2) (Vernon Supp. 2006); Vondy v. Comm'rs Ct., 714 S.W.2d 417, 421 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Carpenter v. Barner, 797 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Tex. App.-Waco 1990, writ denied)). So the relationship alone does not authorize Fund expenditures for the constable, though whether a particular computer serves as a justice court enhancement is a fact question for the commissioners court, which administers the Fund (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.0173(e) (Vernon 2006); Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0533 (2007) at 5).

On training, subarticle (d)(1) limits education expenditures to "justice court judges and clerks." A justice of the peace serves as the justice court judge, and justice court clerks are those designated under Government Code section 27.056 (Tex. Const. art. V, § 18; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 27.001-.059 (Vernon 2004 & Supp. 2006), 27.056 (Vernon 2004); Bunker v. State, 177 S.W. 108, 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915)). Because a constable is neither, the Fund may not pay for a constable's training (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.0173(d)(1) (Vernon 2006)).

Citations

Constitution, statutes, and rules:

• Tex. Const. art. V, § 18
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.12(2) (Vernon Supp. 2006)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.0173 (Vernon 2006)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 62.004(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 62.012(b)(2) (Vernon 2005)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 62.412(c) (Vernon 2005)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 27.001-.059 (Vernon 2004 & Supp. 2006)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 27.056 (Vernon 2004)
• Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 86.021(a), (e) (Vernon Supp. 2006)
• Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 86.022 (Vernon 1999)
• Tex. R. Civ. P. 536

Cases:

• State ex rel. State Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Gonzalez, 82 S.W.3d 322, 327 (Tex. 2002)
• Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 865 (Tex. 1999)
• Standard Oil Co. v. State, 142 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Civ. App.-Eastland 1940, writ ref'd)
• Jordan v. State, 816 S.W.2d 89, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
• Byrd v. Woodruff, 891 S.W.2d 689, 707 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1994, writ denied)
• Merritt v. Harris County, 775 S.W.2d 17, 23 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, writ denied)
• Belcher v. Cassidy Bros. Live-Stock Comm'n Co., 62 S.W. 924, 925-27 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1901, writ denied)
• Vondy v. Comm'rs Ct., 714 S.W.2d 417, 421 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
• Carpenter v. Barner, 797 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Tex. App.-Waco 1990, writ denied)
• Bunker v. State, 177 S.W. 108, 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915)

Attorney General opinions referenced: GA-0533 (2007).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/greg-abbott/ga-0560
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2007/ga0560.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain - the linked PDF is authoritative.

GREG ABBOTT

August 6, 2007

The Honorable Steven M. Hollis
Jasper County Criminal District Attorney
121 North Austin Street, Room 101
Jasper, Texas 75951

Opinion No. GA-0560

Re: Whether the Justice Court Technology Fund may be used to purchase technology equipment and to provide training for constables (RQ-0569-GA)

Dear Mr. Hollis:

You ask whether Jasper County's Justice Court Technology Fund ("Fund"), created under article 102.0173, Code of Criminal Procedure, may be expended on a computer for a constable.[1] See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.0173 (Vernon 2006). You also ask whether the Fund may be expended on continuing education and training for a constable. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. You inform us that a justice of the peace asked the commissioners court to purchase desktop computer systems for his office and for the office of the constable serving the same county precinct. See id. The justice of the peace proposes that the Fund be used to pay for both computers. See id.

I. Article 102.0173, Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 102.0173 requires a county commissioners court to establish a justice court technology fund from fees paid by defendants convicted of a misdemeanor offense in justice court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.0173(a), (c) (Vernon 2006). Subarticle (d) limits the use of a justice court technology fund:

(d) A fund designated by this article may be used only to finance:

(1) the cost of continuing education and training for justice court judges and clerks regarding technological enhancements for justice courts; and

(2) the purchase and maintenance of technological enhancements for a justice court, including:

(A) computer systems;

(B) computer networks;

(C) computer hardware;

(D) computer software;

(E) imaging systems;

(F) electronic kiosks;

(G) electronic ticket writers; and

(H) docket management systems.

Id. art. 102.0173(d) (emphasis added).

In construing a statute, one looks "first to the 'plain and common meaning of the statute's words.'" State ex rel. State Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Gonzalez, 82 S.W.3d 322, 327 (Tex. 2002) (quoting Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 865 (Tex. 1999)). "If a statute's meaning is unambiguous, we generally interpret the statute according to its plain meaning." Id.

A Texas court of appeals has found the terms "only" and "purely" to be synonymous with the term "exclusively." See Standard Oil Co. v. State, 142 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Civ. App.-Eastland 1940, writ ref'd); see also WEBSTER'S UNIVERSAL COLLEGE DICTIONARY 555 (1997) (term "only" is defined to mean "without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively . . ."). And the term "finance" has been construed to mean "to raise or provide funds or capital for" or "to furnish with necessary funds." Jordan v. State, 816 S.W.2d 89, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (quoting WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 463 (1985)); see also WEBSTER'S UNIVERSAL COLLEGE DICTIONARY 301 (1997) (defining finance to mean "to supply with money or capital; obtain money or credit for").

Thus, in accordance with the plain language of article 102.0173(d), the Fund may be used exclusively to provide funds or capital for (1) the cost of certain continuing education and training for justice court judges and clerks, and (2) the purchase and maintenance of technological enhancements for a justice court.

II. Analysis

A. Computer for Constable

Any computers and other technological enhancements purchased under article 102.0173(d) must be for the benefit of the justice court. You argue that "constables, although a separate office, have traditionally been treated as an extension of justice courts." Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. Thus, you suggest, the Fund may be used to purchase a computer for a constable because of that office's relationship to the justice court. Id.

We disagree with your conclusion, while recognizing that a constable has certain statutory duties related to the justice court. For example, he is required to attend each justice court held in the precinct. See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 86.021(e) (Vernon Supp. 2006). A constable may also perform duties related to calling a jury for the justice court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 62.004(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006) ("The district clerk and the sheriff or any constable of the county shall draw the names of the prospective jurors for a justice court. . . ."); .012(b)(2) (Vernon 2005) (the sheriff or constable shall receive the list of jurors to be summoned for a justice court jury); .412(c) (authority of justice of the peace to command the sheriff or constable to immediately summon additional persons for jury service). The constable must serve process directed to him by any lawful officer, including a justice of the peace. See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 86.021(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 536 (any sheriff, constable, or other person authorized by law may serve process for justice court). Further, we recognize constables may, in the exercise of some duties, be an integral part of the judicial process. See Byrd v. Woodruff, 891 S.W.2d 689, 707 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1994, writ denied); see also Merritt v. Harris County, 775 S.W.2d 17, 23 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, writ denied) ("[Constables] are considered under the control of the court in enforcing a court order.").

The constable's role in relation to the justice court does not, however, mean that a constable is equivalent to the justice court. See Merritt, 775 S.W.2d at 23 ("As officers of the court, [constables] are under a duty to execute process and are not a tribunal to determine doubtful questions of fact.") (emphasis added); see also Belcher v. Cassidy Bros. Live-Stock Comm'n Co., 62 S.W. 924, 925-27 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1901, writ denied) (court could not order sheriff or constable to exercise judicial power necessary to partition commingled cattle).

The office of constable is autonomous, distinct from the office of justice of the peace. A constable is elected to a constitutionally established office and his statutory duties to serve process and attend the justice court are conferred upon him and not on the justice court. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 18(a) (providing for the election of one constable in each precinct of each county for a term of four years); see also TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 86.021(a), (e) (Vernon Supp. 2006). Even in serving process a constable may exercise some discretion. See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 86.022 (Vernon 1999). A constable is moreover a peace officer with the attendant authority and responsibilities of that office. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 2.12(2) (Vernon Supp. 2006); see also Vondy v. Comm'rs Ct., 714 S.W.2d 417, 421 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Thus, he has duties unrelated to the justice court, which require him to exercise his official discretion. See Carpenter v. Barner, 797 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Tex. App.-Waco 1990, writ denied).

As we have determined, a constable is not a mere extension of the justice court and a constable's relationship to the justice court is not sufficient to authorize expenditures from the Fund for the constable. We do not, however, rule out the possibility that a computer for a constable might in some circumstances serve as a technological enhancement for a justice court. Whether it would serve such a purpose in this particular instance is a question of fact that the commissioners court must determine in the first instance and is not appropriately resolved in the opinion process. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.0173(e) (Vernon 2006) (justice court technology fund is administered by or under the direction of the commissioners court); Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0533 (2007) at 5 (explaining that resolving questions of fact is not appropriate for the opinion process).

B. Continuing Education and Training for Constable

We next consider whether the Fund may be used to pay for continuing education and training for constables. According to the plain language of subarticle (d), expenditures for specific training and educational costs can be made only for the benefit of "justice court judges and clerks." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.0173(d)(1) (Vernon 2006). A justice of the peace serves as the justice court judge. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 18; TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 27.001-.059 (Vernon 2004 & Supp. 2006); see also Bunker v. State, 177 S.W. 108, 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915) ("The court held by the justice of the peace under authority of the Constitution and laws of this state, is known and generally called the 'justice court'. . . ."). Justice court clerks are those designated as such pursuant to Government Code section 27.056. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 27.056 (Vernon 2004). Because the office of constable is neither a justice of the peace nor a justice court clerk, the Fund may not be expended for a constable's continuing education and training.

SUMMARY

The Justice Court Technology Fund established under Code of Criminal Procedure article 102.0173 may be used only for technological enhancements for the justice court and continuing education and training for justice court judges and clerks regarding technological enhancements. Whether the purchase of a computer for a constable serves as a technological enhancement for the justice court is a fact question to be determined by the commissioners court in the first instance. The Fund may not, however, be used to finance continuing education and training for a constable.

Very truly yours,

GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas

KENT C. SULLIVAN
First Assistant Attorney General

NANCY S. FULLER
Chair, Opinion Committee

Susan Garrison
Christy Drake-Adams
Assistant Attorneys General, Opinion Committee

Footnotes

[1] See Letter from Honorable Steven M. Hollis, Jasper County Criminal District Attorney, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, at 1 (Feb. 8, 2007) (on file with the Opinion Committee, also available at http://www.oag.state.tx.us) [hereinafter Request Letter]; see also Memorandum attached to Request Letter from Honorable Mark W. Allen, Jasper County Judge, to Honorable Steven M. Hollis, Jasper County Criminal District Attorney (Feb. 7, 2007).