The statute of limitations on traffic ticket violations and other Class "C" misdemeanors, in Texas, is two years. Be aware that this does not mean that traffic ticket violations and other Class"C" misdemeanors that are two years or older cannot be prosecuted. What it does mean is that once a violation is two years old, if a complaint has never been filed, then it is barred, and cannot be prosecuted. The complaint is not the citation issued by the officer. The complaint is a formal sworn document which meets the requirements of Chapter 45, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
On September 1, 2009, Texas codified it's then existing two year period of limitation on traffic ticket violations and other Class "C" misdemeanors, into the "statute of limitations".
The 2009 amendments to T.C.C.P. 27.14 and T.C.C.P. 12.02, raise two important questions regarding the status of the period of limitation on Class C misdemeanors prior to the amendments. First, whether there was any limitation at all? Second, if so, what tolled the running of the period of limitation?
Prior to September 1, 2009, was the officer’s citation sufficient to be considered the complaint for the purpose of tolling the period of limitation?
T.C.C.P, Art. 27.14 (d) provides that the citation may serve as the complaint to which the defendant may plead, or even be tried on, if the defendant properly waives the filing of a formal complaint. The placement of the “may serve as a complaint” language, under Chapter 27, the Criminal Pleading Statute, would suggest that the legislature intended the use of the citation to serve as the complaint only for the purposes of pleading, and not for the purposes of limitation. Had the legislature intended for the citation to serve as the complaint for limitation purposes, it would have been placed under Chapter 12, the Limitation Statute.
The language in T.C.C.P. 27.14(d) regarding the citation serving as the complaint, was not changed by the 2009 amendment, and reads exactly the same now as it did prior to September 1, 2009.
Text of subsection effective until September 01, 2009
(d) If written notice of an offense for which maximum possible punishment is by fine only or of a violation relating to the manner, time, and place of parking has been prepared, delivered, and filed with the court and a legible duplicate copy has been given to the defendant, the written notice serves as a complaint to which the defendant may plead "guilty," "not guilty," or "nolo contendere." If the defendant pleads "not guilty" to the offense, a complaint shall be filed that conforms to the requirements of Chapter 45 of this code, and that complaint serves as an original complaint. A defendant may waive the filing of a sworn complaint and elect that the prosecution proceed on the written notice of the charged offense if the defendant agrees in writing with the prosecution, signs the agreement, and files it with the court.
Text of subsection effective September 01, 2009
(d) If written notice of an offense for which maximum possible punishment is by fine only or of a violation relating to the manner, time, and place of parking has been prepared, delivered, and filed with the court and a legible duplicate copy has been given to the defendant, the written notice serves as a complaint to which the defendant may plead "guilty," "not guilty," or "nolo contendere." If the defendant pleads "not guilty" to the offense or fails to appear based on the written notice, a complaint shall be filed that conforms to the requirements of Chapter 45 of this code, and that complaint serves as an original complaint. A defendant may waive the filing of a sworn complaint and elect that the prosecution proceed on the written notice of the charged offense if the defendant agrees in writing with the prosecution, signs the agreement, and files it with the court.
There is no case law, statutory or constitutional authority which supports the notion that the citation may serve as a complaint, for purposes of tolling the period of limitation. The citation may serve as the complaint only in two limited circumstances: when the defendant is not contesting guilt, and when the defendant waives the right to be charged by sworn complaint. (The Recorder, The Journal of Texas Municipal Courts, Volume 16, No. 3, May, 2007, Pages 8- 9, Item 22, Under Any Circumstances, Can A Citation Serve As A Complaint?, Item 23, Does the Filing of a Citation toll The Statute of Limitations?, Texas Municipal Courts Education Center).
Prior to September 1, 2009, the Legislature did not consider the citation sufficient to be the complaint for the purpose of tolling the period of limitation.
Brought to the attention of the legislature, prior to September 1, 2009, was the fact that, in many cases, mostly due to a defendant’s failure to appear, complaints were not timely filed by the courts. Consequently, once the two year limitation period had run, the case was barred from prosecution. (Resolution of the Texas Judicial Council, Require Complaint to be Filed if Defendant Fails to Appear), (Bill Analysis, S.B. 413, Author’s/Sponsor’s Statement of Intent, 6/4/2009), (The Recorder, The Journal of Texas Municipal Courts, Volume 18, No. 4, August 2009, Pages 6-7, Subject: Mandatory Filing of Complaints Upon Non-Appearance, Texas Municipal Courts Education Center).
Senate Bill 413 amended T.C.C.P. 27.14(d) to require the courts to toll the period of limitation, by filing the complaint in cases where the defendant fails to appear. The legislative intent, and the subsequent enactment of Senate Bill 413, is proof of the Legislature’s position on the subject in 2009, that the citation did not in fact, toll the period of limitation. (Bill Analysis, S.B. 413, Author’s/Sponsor’s Statement of Intent, 6/4/2009) (Resolution of the Texas Judicial Council). The passage of the bill was the legislative remedy to the existing problem resulting from the fact that the citation did not toll the period of limitation.
The legislature did not add “complaint” to T.C.C.P 12.02 until September 1, 2009. Doesn’t the omission of “complaint” from the statute prior to September 1, 2009, mean that there was no limtaion on Class C misdemeanors?
Prior to September 1, 2009, T.C.C.P. 12.02 required that an indictment or information be presented within two years from the commission of the offense, but did not mention complaint.
Text of article effective until September 01, 2009
Art. 12.02. MISDEMEANORS. An indictment or information for any misdemeanor may be presented within two years from the date of the commission of the offense, and not afterward.
S.B. 410, amended Art. 12.02 by adding paragraph (b), requiring that a complaint be presented within two years of from the date of the commission of the offense.
Text of article effective September 01, 2009
Art. 12.02. MISDEMEANORS. (a) An indictment or information for any Class A or Class B misdemeanor may be presented within two years from the date of the commission of the offense, and not afterward.
(b) A complaint or information for any Class C misdemeanor may be presented within two years from the date of the commission of the offense, and not afterward.
Despite the statute’s failure to mention “complaint” , prior to September 1, 2009, the majority view was that there was a two year period of limitation. Although, it could be argued that the statute’s failure to mention “complaint” meant there was no limitation, such notion is inconsistent with Texas law, that sets limitations on all but the most serious matters. The majority view that there was a two year limitation, is further supported by case law. In the Hoard case, the Court of Criminal Appeals held a complaint in justice court alleging illegal gaming was barred by the two year statute of limitations. Ex Parte Hoard, 140 S.W. 449, (Tex.Crim.App. 1911). (The Recorder, The Journal of Texas Municipal Courts, Volume 16, No. 3, May, 2007, Page 9, Item 23, Does the Filing of a Citation toll The Statute of Limitations?, Texas Municipal Courts Education Center), (Resolution of the Texas Judicial Council, Set Statute of Limitations in Class C Misdemeanor Cases), (Bill Analysis, S.B. 410, Author’s/Sponsor’s Statement of Intent, 6/4/2009).
SUMMARY
The law regarding the two year limitation of actions, for Class C misdemeanors, and tolling thereof, was the same prior to September 1, 2009, as it is now. The amendments to Articles 12.02, and 27.14, neither took away nor added to what was already the law. Those amendments merely codified the then existing law on limitation, regarding Class C misdemeanors, into the current “statute of limitation”.
The September 1, 2009, codification of the statute of limitation does not mean that there was no period of limitation for Class C misdemeanors prior to September 1, 2009. The Pre-September 1, 2009, majority view, that there was a two year period of limitation, and that it was tolled by the timely filing of a complaint, is supported by case law.
There is no authority supporting the notion that the citation tolled the period of limitation.
Although T.C.C.P. 27.14(d) mentions the citation serving as the complaint, the legislature’s placement of this provision under the Criminal Pleading Statute suggests that the intent was for the citation to serve as the complaint for the limited purpose of defendant’s pleading, but not for tolling the period of limitation.
Prior to September 1, 2009, the legislature’s position was that the citation, did not in fact, toll the two year period of limitation for Class C misdemeanors. That position appears to be shared by Texas Municipal Court Education Center. Because the citation did not toll the period of limitation, the legislature sought a remedy to fix the recurring problem of barred prosecutions. The solution was the amendment to 27.14(b) requiring the court to file a complaint when a defendant fails to appear. The amendment does nothing more than impose a duty on the court to toll the statute of limitation, by filing the complaint, to avoid prosecutions from continuing to become barred after two years.
The period of limitation for Class C misdemeanors prior to September 1, 2009, was two years. Only the filing of the complaint tolled the period of limitation. The citation could serve as the complaint in limited circumstances, for the defendant to plead to, but not for the purpose of tolling the limitation period. The citation has never tolled the period of limitation.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
The Recorder, The Journal of Texas Municipal Courts, Volume 16, No. 5, May, 2007, Page 9, Item 23, Does the Filing of a Citation toll The Statute of Limitations?, Texas Municipal Courts Education Center
The Recorder, The Journal of Texas Municipal Courts, Volume 18, No. 4, August 2009, Pages 6-7, Subject: Statute of Limitations in Class C Misdemeanors, Texas Municipal Courts Education Center
The Recorder, The Journal of Texas Municipal Courts, Volume 18, No. 4, August 2009, Pages 6-7, Subject: Mandatory Filing of Complaints Upon Non-Appearance, Texas Municipal Courts Education Center
Ex Parte Hoard, 140 S.W. 449, (Tex.Crim.App. 1911)
T.C.C.P. 27.14(d), Text of article effective until September 01, 2009
T.C.C.P. 12.02, Text of article effective until September 01, 2009
Resolution of the Texas Judicial Council, Require Complaint to be Filed if Defendant Fails to Appear,
Resolution of the Texas Judicial Council, Set Statute of Limitations in Class C Misdemeanor Cases
S.B. 410, 81st Legislature, Regular Session, Effective September 1, 2009
S.B. 413, 81st Legislature, Regular Session, Effective September 1, 2009
Bill Analysis, S.B. 410, Author’s/Sponsor’s Statement of Intent, 6/4/2009
Bill Analysis, S.B. 413, Author’s/Sponsor’s Statement of Intent, 6/4/2009
T.C.C.P. 27.14(d) Text of article effective September 01, 2009
T.C.C.P. 12.02(b) Text of article effective September 01, 2009
Charles French was licensed to practice law in Texas in 1991. The majority of his practice includes the Justice of the Peace and Municipal Courts in Houston, Harris County and surrounding counties. You may visit his website by going to:
