Who is the 'judicial officer who collected the fees' for Texas time-payment fee funds, the clerk or the judge?

Plain-English summary

When a convicted defendant in Texas waits more than 30 days to pay a fine, court costs, or restitution, the court clerk collects an extra time-payment fee. A slice of that money, ten percent, goes into the county or city general fund earmarked for improving the efficiency of the administration of justice, and the statute says the local government must "prioritize the needs of the judicial officer who collected the fees" when it spends that money. The Dallas County District Attorney asked the Attorney General who that "judicial officer" is: the court clerk, or the judge or justice who runs the court.

The Attorney General concluded it is the court clerk. The phrase "who collected the fees" points back to the subsection that requires the clerk to collect the time-payment fee. Judges and justices assess the fees, but they do not collect or gather them, so they do not fit the modifier. The opinion treated the statute as clear on its face and so did not look to legislative history. It added that calling a clerk a "judicial officer" is not unusual: in the broad sense the term covers any officer of the court, and the Texas Constitution and case law treat a court clerk as an officer of the court. The practical upshot is that the local government must direct the earmarked ten percent first toward the clerk's office needs.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General 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.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

District and county attorneys (what the opinion held for them): The opinion held that the statutory phrase resolves to the court clerk who collects time-payment fees, giving prosecutors and county officials a clear reading of who the earmarked funds must prioritize.

County and municipal treasurers and commissioners (what the opinion held for them): The opinion held that when spending the ten-percent administration-of-justice share, the local government must prioritize the needs of the court clerk's office, not the judge's, because the clerk is the officer "who collected the fees."

Court clerks (what the opinion held for them): The opinion held that clerks are the "judicial officer" whose needs receive priority under section 51.921(d), so the earmarked share is to be directed toward the collecting clerk's office first.

Common questions

Who actually collects the Texas time-payment fee?
The court clerk. Under section 51.921(a), the clerk of a district court, statutory county court, justice court, or municipal court collects the $25 fee from a convicted person who pays a fine, court costs, or restitution on or after the 31st day after judgment.

Does the judge get priority for the earmarked fee money?
No. The opinion concluded that because the statute prioritizes the officer "who collected the fees," and judges assess but do not collect them, the priority runs to the clerk, not the judge.

Why is a court clerk called a 'judicial officer' here?
Because the term has a broad sense covering any officer of the court. The opinion pointed to the Texas Constitution's inclusion of the county clerk in the judicial department and to case law treating clerks as officers of the court.

What can the ten-percent share be spent on?
The statute earmarks it for improving the efficiency of the administration of justice in the county or municipality, with priority given to the needs of the clerk who collected the fees.

Background and statutory framework

Government Code section 51.921 imposes a $25 time-payment fee on a convicted defendant who pays any part of a fine, court costs, or restitution on or after the 31st day after judgment. Subsection (a) requires the clerk of each district court, statutory county court, justice court, and municipal court to collect it; subsection (b) directs the collecting officer to keep separate records and deposit the money in the county or municipal treasury; and subsection (d) routes ten percent into the general fund for improving the administration of justice, with a direction to prioritize the needs of the judicial officer who collected the fees. The opinion described the fee, drawing on Opinion DM-464 (1997) and Letter Opinion LO-98-076, as a charge on defendants who delay payment, the proceeds of which are shared among various organs of government.

Reading the modifier "who collected the fees" against subsection (a), the opinion found the clerk to be the only officer who fits, since judges and justices assess but do not gather the fee. It applied the common-usage canon in Government Code § 311.011(a) and, finding the text clear, declined to consult legislative history, citing Opinion JC-0253 (2000) and Sorokolit v. Rhodes. On the breadth of "judicial officer," it cited Black's Law Dictionary and Garner's Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, along with Texas Constitution article V, section 20 (placing the county clerk in the judicial department) and Stokes v. Aberdeen Insurance Co., Ex parte Hughes, and Moore v. Muse for the proposition that a court clerk is an officer of the court.

Citations

Statutory provisions:

• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 51.921(a), (b), (d) (Vernon Supp. 2000)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 311.011(a) (Vernon 1998)
• Tex. Const. art. V, § 20

Cases:

• Sorokolit v. Rhodes, 889 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. 1994)
• Stokes v. Aberdeen Ins. Co., 917 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam)
• Ex parte Hughes, 759 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. 1988)
• Moore v. Muse, 47 Tex. 210 (1877)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/john-cornyn/jc-0306
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2000/jc0306.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official scanned PDF. Minor character-level errors from the source OCR have been corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - STATE OF TEXAS

JOHN CORNYN

November 10, 2000

The Honorable Bill Hill
Dallas County District Attorney
Administration Building
411 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75202

Opinion No. JC-0306

Re: Whether the phrase "judicial officer who collected the fees" used in section 51.921(d) of the Government Code refers to the court clerk who collects time-payment fees (RQ-0254-JC)

Dear Mr. Hill:

Section 51.921(a) of the Government Code authorizes a trial court clerk to collect a time-payment fee from a convicted criminal defendant who opts to delay payment of any fine, court costs, or restitution. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 51.921(a) (Vernon Supp. 2000). Subsection (d) allocates ten percent of the money collected under subsection (a) to the county or municipal treasury to improve "the efficiency of the administration of justice in the county or municipality." Id. § 51.921(d). "The county or municipality shall prioritize the needs of the judicial officer who collected the fees when making expenditures under this subsection." Id. You ask whether the term "judicial officer" in subsection (d) refers to the court clerk or to the judge or justice of the court.[1] Because subsection (d) refers to the "judicial officer who collected the fees," id., we conclude that it refers to the court clerk who receives time-payment fees under subsection (a).

In a nutshell, section 51.921 of the Government Code imposes a charge upon a convicted defendant who seeks to delay paying a fine, court costs, or restitution. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-464 (1997) at 2; Tex. Att'y Gen. LO-98-076, at 1. Time-payment fee proceeds "are shared among various organs of government," including the county or municipal treasury. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-464 (1997) at 5. Your question concerns the use of that portion that is allocated to the county's or municipality's general fund to improve judicial efficiency. See Request Letter, note 1, at 1.

Section 51.921 provides:

(a) In addition to other fees authorized or required by law, the clerk of each district court, statutory county court, justice court, and municipal court shall collect a fee of $25 from a person who:

(1) has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor; and

(2) pays any part of a fine, court costs, or restitution on or after the 31st day after the date on which a judgment is entered assessing the fine, court costs, or restitution.

(b) Court fees under this section shall be collected in the same manner as other fees, fines, or costs in the case. The officer collecting the fees shall keep separate records of the money collected under this section and shall deposit the money in the county or municipal treasury, as appropriate.

. . .

(d) The custodian of the county or municipal treasury, as appropriate, shall deposit 10 percent of the fees collected under this section in the general fund of the county or municipality for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the administration of justice in the county or municipality. The county or municipality shall prioritize the needs of the judicial officer who collected the fees when making expenditures under this subsection.

TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 51.921 (Vernon Supp. 2000).

The judicial officer referred to in subsection (d) can be only the clerk of court who collects the fee under subsection (a). On its face, section 51.921(d) restricts the scope of the "judicial officer" whose needs must be prioritized to that officer "who collected the fees." The modifying phrase "who collected the fees" refers back to subsection (a), which requires the clerk of a district court, statutory county court, county court, justice court, and municipal court to collect a time-payment fee in certain circumstances. While judges and justices assess time-payment fees, they do not "collect," or gather, them. See id. § 311.011(a) (Vernon 1998) (requiring construer to read statutory words consistently with rules of common usage); III OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 476-77 (2d ed. 1989). Because section 51.921 is clear on its face, we do not examine the section's legislative history. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0253 (2000) at 4 (citing Sorokolit v. Rhodes, 889 S.W.2d 239, 241 (Tex. 1994)).

It is not unprecedented for the term "judicial officer" to be used to refer to a clerk of court. In a narrow sense, the term may allude only to one who adjudicates "causes between parties or" who "renders decision[s] in a judicial capacity," such as a judge or justice. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 761 (5th ed. 1979); see also id. at 851 (7th ed. 1999). But in a broader sense, the term may designate any officer of the court. See id. at 851 (7th ed. 1999); id. at 761 (5th ed. 1979); BRYAN A. GARNER, A DICTIONARY OF MODERN LEGAL USAGE 321 (1987) (discussing use of "judicial"). A court clerk is an officer of the court. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 20 (including county clerk in judicial department); BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 246 (7th ed. 1999) (defining "clerk"); Stokes v. Aberdeen Ins. Co., 917 S.W.2d 267, 268 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam); Ex parte Hughes, 759 S.W.2d 118, 119 n.1 (Tex. 1988) (quoting Moore v. Muse, 47 Tex. 210, 215 (1877)).

SUMMARY

The "judicial officer who collected the fees" to whom section 51.921(d) of the Government Code refers is the court clerk who collects time-payment fees under section 51.921(a). See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 51.921 (Vernon Supp. 2000).

JOHN CORNYN
Attorney General of Texas

ANDY TAYLOR
First Assistant Attorney General

CLARK KENT ERVIN
Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel

SUSAN D. GUSKY
Chair, Opinion Committee

Kymberly K. Oltrogge
Assistant Attorney General - Opinion Committee

[1] See Letter from Honorable Bill Hill, Dallas County District Attorney, to Honorable John Cornyn, Texas Attorney General (June 26, 2000) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Request Letter].