When Texas's amended bail-bond law referred to crimes committed after 'the effective date of this Act,' did it mean 1973 or 1981?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1983. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.
Texas AG Opinion JM-75: Bail-Bond Licensing Crime Cutoff Date
Plain-English summary
JM-75 concluded that the phrase "after the effective date of this Act" in former article 2372p-3 referred to August 27, 1973, when the original Texas bail-bond licensing statute took effect. It did not refer to August 31, 1981, when the legislature completely reenacted and amended the law.
"We conclude that this phrase refers to August 27, 1973, and that sections 3(c) and 9(b)(3) presently refer to offenses committed after August 27, 1973."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf
The date affected both initial license eligibility and later suspension or revocation. Section 3(c) made a person ineligible after a covered final conviction, while section 9(b)(3) allowed a county bail bond board to suspend or revoke a license for a covered final conviction involving a post-cutoff felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.
"No person shall be eligible for a license under this Act, who after the effective date of this Act, commits an offense for which he is finally convicted."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf"[F]inal conviction under the laws of this or any other state or of the United States of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or of a felony committed after the effective date of this Act."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf
The opinion applied a statutory-construction rule that "this Act" in an amended section ordinarily referred to the original act as amended. If the legislature had intended the 1981 date, JM-75 reasoned, it would have said "this amendment."
"We conclude that the phrase 'this Act' in an amended section of a statute ordinarily refers to the original act as amended, and not merely to the amending act."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf"We believe that if the legislature intended otherwise, it would have provided for offenses committed 'after the effective date of this amendment.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1983. 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
What were the two possible cutoff dates?
August 27, 1973 was the original act's effective date. August 31, 1981 was the effective date of the complete reenactment and amendment.
"The legislature enacted a statute to license and regulate bail bondsmen which became effective on August 27, 1973."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf"Effective August 31, 1981, the legislature amended that statute with a complete re-enactment designed to more properly regulate the bail bond business."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf
Which date did JM-75 select?
It selected August 27, 1973.
"We conclude that this phrase refers to August 27, 1973."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf
Did the cutoff apply only to revoking an existing license?
No. It applied to section 3(c)'s eligibility rule and section 9(b)(3)'s suspension-or-revocation rule.
"[T]he 1981 amendment changed that section to provide for suspension or revocation of a license for 'final conviction . . . of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or of a felony committed after the effective date of this Act' and changed section 3(c) to provide that persons who committed such crimes after 'the effective date of this Act' are not eligible for a license."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf
Why did the complete 1981 reenactment not reset the date?
The legislature repeatedly used "this Act" throughout the reenacted statute, and JM-75 read that phrase as referring to the original statute as amended rather than only the 1981 amending act.
"In re-enacting article 2372p-3, the legislature used the words 'this Act' at least 52 times in 10 different sections of that article."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf"We conclude that the phrase 'this Act' in an amended section of a statute ordinarily refers to the original act as amended, and not merely to the amending act."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf
What wording would have pointed to the 1981 date?
JM-75 said the legislature could have referred to offenses committed after the effective date of "this amendment."
"We believe that if the legislature intended otherwise, it would have provided for offenses committed 'after the effective date of this amendment.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf
Background and statutory framework
Before 1981, section 9(b)(3) allowed license suspension or revocation for a felony conviction or a misdemeanor conviction involving moral turpitude without the later final-conviction and offense-date language.
"Prior to the 1981 amendment, section 9(b)(3) of that statute provided that a bondsman's license may be suspended or revoked by the county bail bond board for 'conviction under the laws of this or any other state or of the federal government of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or of a felony.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf
Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade asked whether the amended phrase pointed to the original or amendatory effective date.
"You have asked whether 'the effective date of this Act' in sections 3(c) and 9(b)(3) of article 2372p-3 is August 27, 1973, the date of the original act, or August 31, 1981, the date of the amendatory act."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf
Holding
"The provisions relating to offenses committed 'after the effective date of this Act' in article 2372p-3, sections 3(c) and 9(b)(3), V.T.C.S., refer to August 27, 1973, the date of the original act, instead of August 31, 1981, the date of the amendatory act."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.pdf
Citations and references
Statutes discussed by JM-75:
- "article 2372p-3, V.T.C.S." Official PDF
- "sections 3(c) and 9(b)(3)" Official PDF
- "Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 312" Official PDF
- "Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 550" Official PDF
Cases cited by JM-75:
- "Henry v. McKay, 3 P.2d 145, 151 (Wash. 1931)" Official PDF
- "State v. Anderson, 232 P. 238 (Kan. 1924)" Official PDF
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0075
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0075.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
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
October 12, 1983
Honorable Henry Wade
Dallas County District Attorney
Government Center
Dallas, Texas 75202
Opinion No. JM-75
Re: Effective date of article 2372p-3, relating to regulation of bail bondsmen
Dear Mr. Wade:
The legislature enacted a statute to license and regulate bail bondsmen which became effective on August 27, 1973. See V.T.C.S. art. 2372p-3. Effective August 31, 1981, the legislature amended that statute with a complete re-enactment designed to more properly regulate the bail bond business. Prior to the 1981 amendment, section 9(b)(3) of that statute provided that a bondsman's license may be suspended or revoked by the county bail bond board for "conviction under the laws of this or any other state or of the federal government of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or of a felony." The 1981 amendment changed that section to provide for suspension or revocation of a license for "final conviction under the laws of this or any other state or of the United States of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or of a felony committed after the effective date of this Act" and changed section 3(c) to provide that persons who committed such crimes after "the effective date of this Act" are not eligible for a license. See Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 312; Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 550.
You have asked whether "the effective date of this Act" in sections 3(c) and 9(b)(3) of article 2372p-3 is August 27, 1973, the date of the original act, or August 31, 1981, the date of the amendatory act. We conclude that this phrase refers to August 27, 1973, and that sections 3(c) and 9(b)(3) presently refer to offenses committed after August 27, 1973.
In re-enacting article 2372p-3, the legislature used the words "this Act" at least 52 times in 10 different sections of that article. For instance, the language in section 3(c) is:
(c) No person shall be eligible for a license under this Act, who after the effective date of this Act, commits an offense for which he is finally convicted . . . . (Emphasis added).
Section 9(b) states that:
(b) The board may, on its own motion, and shall, on receipt of a sworn complaint providing reasonable cause to believe that a violation of this Act has occurred or on the request of a court, investigate the actions and records relating to such complaint against any bondsman it has licensed. The board may, after notice and hearing, suspend or revoke a license for:
. . . .
(3) final conviction under the laws of this or any other state or of the United States of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or of a felony committed after the effective date of this Act . . . . (Emphasis added).
We conclude that the phrase "this Act" in an amended section of a statute ordinarily refers to the original act as amended, and not merely to the amending act. We believe that the legislature, in this instance, intended the phrase "after the effective date of this Act" to refer to the effective date of the original statute and not to the effective date of the amending act. We believe that if the legislature intended otherwise, it would have provided for offenses committed "after the effective date of this amendment." This conclusion is in accord with decisions reached in other jurisdictions. See Henry v. McKay, 3 P.2d 145, 151 (Wash. 1931); State v. Anderson, 232 P. 238 (Kan. 1924); Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 4th ed., §22.35.
SUMMARY
The provisions relating to offenses committed "after the effective date of this Act" in article 2372p-3, sections 3(c) and 9(b)(3), V.T.C.S., refer to August 27, 1973, the date of the original act, instead of August 31, 1981, the date of the amendatory act.
Very truly yours,
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Nancy Sutton
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Jon Bible
David Brooks
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton
Bruce Youngblood
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1983 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.