Does a Texas municipal court have jurisdiction over a bad check written for goods or services?

Texas AG Opinion DM-0082: Municipal Court Jurisdiction Over Bad-Check Cases

Plain-English summary

A state representative asked whether the Corpus Christi Municipal Court could hear cases involving bad checks, and in particular whether it mattered if the check was passed in exchange for property or services rather than just to pay money. The Attorney General split the answer along the line between two different offenses.

Municipal courts share jurisdiction with the justice courts over state-law criminal cases that arise inside the city and are punishable by a fine only, not to exceed $500 (Government Code section 29.003(b); Code of Criminal Procedure article 4.12). Writing a bad check for the payment of money is its own offense under Penal Code section 32.41, and it was a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by fine only. Because that punishment fits within the fine-only limit, municipal and justice courts always had concurrent jurisdiction over that offense when it happened within the city.

Passing a worthless check in exchange for property or services is a different crime. The Attorney General concluded it is theft under Penal Code sections 31.03 (theft) and 31.04 (theft of service), citing Christiansen v. State. For theft, the grade of the offense, and therefore which court can hear it, depends on the value taken. At the time, theft of property or services valued at less than $20 was generally a Class C misdemeanor. So the municipal and justice courts had concurrent jurisdiction over a bad-check theft case only when the property or services involved were worth less than $20 (that is, $19.99 or less). The opinion noted in passing that a single bad-check transaction can sometimes violate both the bad-check statute and the theft statutes, but it did not resolve any jurisdictional questions about that overlap because the representative had not asked.

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. The dollar thresholds the opinion relied on have changed since 1992: both the Class C misdemeanor fine ceiling and the theft-value grades in the Penal Code have been raised by later legislation, and the bad-check and theft statutes have been amended. Verify current law before relying on any dollar figure or grade mentioned here.

Common questions

Why does it matter whether the check paid money or bought goods?
Because they are charged as different offenses. A bad check written just to pay money is the bad-check offense (Penal Code section 32.41). A bad check passed for property or services is theft (sections 31.03 and 31.04). The two offenses are graded differently, which changes which court can hear the case.

When could the municipal court hear a bad-check-for-goods case under this opinion?
Only when the property or services involved were worth less than $20, because that was the cutoff for a Class C misdemeanor theft. Above that value the theft was a higher-grade offense outside the fine-only jurisdiction of the municipal court.

Was the plain bad-check offense always within municipal court jurisdiction?
Yes, under the law as it stood. Issuing a bad check for payment of money was a Class C misdemeanor punishable by fine only, which fit the municipal court's jurisdiction, so the municipal and justice courts shared jurisdiction over it whenever it occurred within the city.

Can one bad check be both a bad-check offense and theft?
The opinion noted it can, for example when a bad check is exchanged for cash, and it cited Attorney General Opinion JM-820 for the point that double jeopardy does not bar trying both. It did not decide the jurisdictional questions that overlap raises, because they were not asked.

Background and statutory framework

Municipal courts are created by statute in each incorporated municipality (Gov't Code § 29.002), and their criminal jurisdiction under state law is set by Gov't Code § 29.003(b), with a parallel statement in Code Crim. Proc. art. 4.12: concurrent jurisdiction with the justice court over state-law offenses arising in the city and punishable only by a fine not to exceed $500. Issuing a bad check for payment of money is governed by Penal Code § 32.41 and was a Class C misdemeanor, with the fine-only punishment set by Penal Code § 12.23. Passing a bad check for property or services implicates the theft statutes, Penal Code §§ 31.03 and 31.04, whose grading turns on value (theft under $20 generally being a Class C misdemeanor under §§ 31.03(e)(1) and 31.04(e)(1)). The fine ceilings the opinion used reflected amendments made by House Bill 407, Acts 1991, 72d Leg., ch. 108. The opinion cited Christiansen v. State, 575 S.W.2d 42 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979), and Attorney General Opinions V-104 (1947) and JM-820 (1987).

Citations

Statutory provisions:

• Gov't Code § 29.002 (creation of municipal courts)
• Gov't Code § 29.003(b) (municipal court criminal jurisdiction)
• Code Crim. Proc. art. 4.12 (same jurisdictional limits)
• Penal Code § 32.41 (issuance of a bad check)
• Penal Code § 12.23 (Class C misdemeanor punishment)
• Penal Code § 31.03 (theft) and § 31.04 (theft of service)
• Penal Code § 31.01(6)(C) (definition of "property")

Cases:

• Christiansen v. State, 575 S.W.2d 42 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)

Prior Attorney General opinions discussed: V-104 (1947), JM-820 (1987).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/dan-morales/dm-0082
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1992/dm0082.pdf

Original opinion text

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

Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas

DAN MORALES
Attorney General

January 30, 1992

Honorable Eddie Cavazos
Chairman
Budget and Oversight Committee
P. O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Opinion No. DM-82

Re: Whether the Corpus Christi Municipal Court has jurisdiction in certain cases involving the issuance of bad checks (RQ-222)

Dear Representative Cavazos:

You ask whether the Corpus Christi Municipal Court has jurisdiction in cases involving the issuance of a bad check, specifically in a situation in which a bad check is passed in exchange for property or services, as distinguished from a situation in which a bad check is issued solely for payment of money. We will begin by examining the jurisdiction of municipal courts in cases involving state law violations, and we will then address the penal provisions that pertain to your question.

A municipal court in each incorporated municipality is created by statute. See Gov't Code § 29.002. The jurisdictional limits of the municipal courts in regard to criminal cases arising under state law are set forth in section 29.003(b)[1] of the Government Code as follows:

(b) The municipal court has concurrent jurisdiction with the justice court of a precinct in which the municipality is located in all criminal cases arising under state law that:

(1) arise within the territorial limits of the municipality; and

(2) are punishable only by a fine not to exceed $500.

See also Code Crim. Proc. art. 4.12 (stating same jurisdictional limitations).

Violation of section 32.41 of the Penal Code, the issuance of a bad check for payment of money, is a Class C misdemeanor. Penal Code § 32.41(f). A Class C misdemeanor is punishable by fine only, not to exceed $500. Id. § 12.23.[2] Because the punishment for a Class C misdemeanor conforms to the statutory jurisdiction of municipal and justice courts, the two courts will always have concurrent jurisdiction over cases involving the prosecution of the offense of issuance of a bad check for payment of money, when the offense is committed within the territorial limits of the municipality. See Attorney General Opinion V-104 (1947).

You ask whether the municipal court has jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance of a bad check when the check is issued for property[3] or services. We must determine the offense that can be properly charged in such situations, in order to determine whether the municipal court of Corpus Christi may hear the case. Passing a worthless check in exchange for property or services violates the theft statutes. Penal Code §§ 31.03 (theft), 31.04 (theft of service); see Christiansen v. State, 575 S.W.2d 42 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Attorney General Opinion JM-820 (1987).[4] Whether the municipal and justice courts have jurisdiction of prosecution for theft cases involving the passing of a bad check depends on the value of the property involved. Theft of property or services valued at less than $20 is generally a Class C misdemeanor. See Penal Code §§ 31.03(e)(1) (making theft of property valued at less than $20 a Class C misdemeanor, except where actor is a public servant), 31.04(e)(1) (Class C misdemeanor if value of service stolen is less than $20). The justice and municipal courts would, therefore, have concurrent jurisdiction of theft cases involving property or services valued at $19.99 or less.

SUMMARY

The Corpus Christi Municipal Court has jurisdiction over theft cases involving the issuance of a check when the property or services involved is valued at less than $20.

DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas

WILL PRYOR
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY (Ret.)
Special Assistant Attorney General

RENEA HICKS
Special Assistant Attorney General

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON
Chair, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Ray H. Guajardo
Assistant Attorney General

[1] Section 29.003(b) of the Government Code was amended by House Bill 407, Acts 1991, 72d Leg., ch. 108, § 7, at 682, effective September 1, 1991. Before this amendment, the amount of the fine for municipal court jurisdiction of criminal cases was $200.

[2] Section 12.23 of the Penal Code was amended by House Bill 407 of the 72d Legislature to increase the amount of the fine for a Class C misdemeanor from $200. This change in the amount of the fine for a misdemeanor applies only for an offense committed on or after the effective date of the act. House Bill 407, supra, §§ 1, 12. Further, an offense is committed before the effective date of the act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date. Id. § 12, at 682.

[3] We understand your use of the term "property" to not include money, although such is not the case in the theft chapter of the Penal Code. See Penal Code § 31.01(6)(C) ("[p]roperty" may be "a document, including money, that represents or embodies anything of value").

[4] We note that one bad check transaction may involve a violation of section 32.41, as well as section 31.03 or 31.04 of the Penal Code, as, for example, when a bad check is exchanged for cash. See Attorney General Opinion JM-820 (where both offenses arise from one transaction, double jeopardy provisions of the state and federal constitutions do not bar the trial of an accused for both issuance of a bad check and theft); see also Penal Code § 31.01(6)(C) ("[p]roperty" includes money). We further note that an offense under section 32.41 of the Penal Code is not a lesser included offense of a section 31.03 or 31.04 offense. Penal Code § 32.41(g). Since you do not raise any questions pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Corpus Christi Municipal Court in such situations, we will not address them at this time.