Could Texas county or district judges operate a work-release detention facility outside the county sheriff's supervision?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.
Texas AG Opinion JM-212: Work-Release Facilities
Plain-English summary
The Texas Commission on Jail Standards asked about its jurisdiction over a county work-release facility operated by county and district judges rather than by the sheriff. It also asked about facilities operated by sheriffs or by contractors holding people committed to a sheriff's custody. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
JM-212 said the commission clearly had jurisdiction over confinement facilities operated by a sheriff or by another party under contract with a county. It also treated facilities separate from the county jail as subject to commission supervision when they were used to confine prisoners. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
For work-release sentences, the opinion concluded that a person could not be confined in a non-jail facility operated outside the sheriff's authority or supervision, except where probation had been granted. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
JM-212 relied on article 5118b's requirement that a work-release participant remain in the county jail or another facility designated by the sheriff whenever the person was not at work. It concluded that county and district judges lacked authority to operate an independent work-release detention facility. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
The summary stated both holdings: the commission supervised facilities used to confine work-release prisoners, and the county and district courts could not operate those facilities independently of the county sheriff. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1984. 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.
Common questions
Did the Jail Standards Commission oversee work-release detention facilities?
Yes. JM-212 concluded that the commission had supervision over facilities used to confine prisoners participating in a work-release program. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
Could county or district judges run a work-release facility without the sheriff?
No. The opinion said the judges had no authority to operate or maintain such a facility independently of the county sheriff. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
Did commission jurisdiction depend on the facility being the main county jail?
No. JM-212 said separate facilities used for prisoner confinement were also within the commission's jurisdiction. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
What about a city jail holding county prisoners under contract?
The opinion used a city jail housing county prisoners under an interlocal contract as an example of a confinement facility subject to state standards. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
Who designated where a work-release participant stayed outside working hours?
Under the law discussed in JM-212, article 5118b required the participant to remain in the county jail or another facility designated by the sheriff, except during employment. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
Background and statutory framework
Article 5115.1 established the Texas Commission on Jail Standards and authorized rules for county-jail construction, maintenance, operation, and prisoner care. It defined a county jail as a jail, lock-up, or other county-operated facility used to confine people accused or convicted of an offense. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
JM-212 also cited article 5115d for counties' authority, with the sheriff's approval, to contract with private organizations to operate low-risk detention facilities. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
The work-release analysis relied on Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.03 and article 5118b. The first allowed specified work-release sentencing; the second placed employment assistance and off-work confinement within the sheriff-centered county program described by the opinion. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
Citations and references
- Article 5115.1, V.T.C.S., established the commission and defined the county facilities within its jurisdiction. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
- Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.03, sections 5 and 6, supplied the work-release sentencing provisions discussed in the opinion. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
- V.T.C.S. article 5118b supplied the sheriff's employment and confinement roles for county work-release participants. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
- Attorney General Opinions MW-328 (1981) and MW-559 (1982) appeared as earlier authority concerning standards for contracted and separate confinement facilities. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0212
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0212.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.
The Attorney General of Texas
October 16, 1984
Mr. Robert O. Viterna
Executive Director
Texas Commission on Jail Standards
P. O. Box 12985
Austin, Texas 78711
Opinion No. JM-212
Re: Authority of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards over a county work release facility
Dear Mr. Viterna:
You have requested our opinion regarding the jurisdiction of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards over a work release facility operated by the county and district judge but not by the sheriff. You have also asked whether your agency has jurisdiction over facilities operated by the sheriff or operated by others under contract with the county to hold persons committed to the custody of the sheriff. You have stated that recent legislation authorizes the establishment of work release programs in the various counties under the supervision of the sheriff. However, you state that one county proposes a work release program operated by the district and county court whereby the prisoners are released from the sheriff's custody by court order and housed in facilities supervised by the courts.
The Texas Commission on Jail Standards is established by article 5115.1, V.T.C.S. The commission has authority to promulgate rules and regulations regarding the construction, maintenance, and operation of county jails and the standard of care in the treatment of prisoners. A "county jail" is defined as follows:
Any jail, lock-up, or other facility that is operated by or for a county for the confinement of persons accused or convicted of an offense.
V.T.C.S. art. 5115.1, § 2(3). We believe that it is very clear that the Texas Commission on Jail Standards has jurisdiction over confinement facilities operated by the sheriff or operated by others under contract with the county. A city jail, for example, housing county prisoners pursuant to interlocal contract is subject to the state standards for law enforcement officer training and education. Attorney General Opinion MW-328 (1981). Facilities separate and apart from the county jail itself, if they are used for the confinement of prisoners, are also subject to the commission's jurisdiction. Attorney General Opinion MW-559 (1982). Counties, as of 1983, have express authority to contract with private organizations, with the approval of the sheriff, for the operation of a low-risk detention facility. V.T.C.S. art. 5115d.
Persons convicted and committed to jail may be entitled to participate in a work release program if a judge so provides in the sentence. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.03, §§ 5, 6. The convicted person is ordered confined during his off work hours and on weekends. Except in cases where probation has been granted, we do not believe that a sentence of confinement may order a person to be detained or confined in non-jail facilities not operated by the sheriff or under his supervision.
We do not believe that the district or county judges have authority to operate a detention facility. The only penal punishments authorized by the Penal Code are the assessment of a fine or confinement in a county jail or the Texas Department of Corrections. See Penal Code, § 12.01 (punishments). However, as of 1983, a judge may sentence persons convicted of third degree felonies or offenses punishable by county jail confinement to serve "an alternate term for the same period of time in the county jail work release program." Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.03, § 6(a). A county jail work release program is not defined by the statute. Any person sentenced to the county jail work release program pursuant to article 42.03, section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may have employment secured for him by the county sheriff. V.T.C.S. art. 5118b. Any person who is participating in a county work release program is required by article 5118b, section 2, to remain confined in the county jail or other facility designated by the sheriff at all times except during periods of employment. We believe that this requirement precludes the county judge or district judge from operating or maintaining any work release facility not under the supervision of the county sheriff.
SUMMARY
The Texas Commission on Jail Standards has supervision over facilities used for the confinement of prisoners on a work release program. The district and county court does not have authority to operate such facilities independent of the county sheriff.
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by David Brooks
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
David Brooks
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1984 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.