BILL ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 303

By: Bernal

Criminal Jurisprudence

Committee Report (Substituted)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Currently a justice or municipal court may order an individual to be confined in jail for the failure to pay their fines and fees under the state's Failure to Appear/Failure to Pay Program. In many of these situations, the court fees are for small nonviolent offenses such as traffic tickets. Individuals who fail to pay their court fees in these instances typically are struggling to make ends meet and do not deserve to be sentenced to confinement. C.S.H.B. 303 seeks to ensure that defendants who do not have the ability to pay a fine or costs related to a fine-only offense or contempt of a judgment or municipal or justice court order do not face confinement as a punishment.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.

ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 303 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to prohibit a justice or municipal court from ordering the confinement of a person, including a child who is at least 10 years of age and younger than 17 years of age, for the failure to pay all or part of a fine or cost imposed for the conviction of a fine-only offense, or contempt of a judgment entered for the conviction of a fine-only offense. The bill replaces the authorization for a municipality to enforce the collection of fine by imprisonment of the defendant with a prohibition against enforcing the collection of fines by imprisonment of a defendant.

C.S.H.B. 303 replaces the requirement that a defendant placed in jail on account of failure to pay the fine and costs be discharged on habeas corpus by showing that the defendant is too poor to pay the fine and costs or has remained in jail a sufficient length of time to satisfy the fine and costs at a minimum rate of $150 for each period served, as specified by the convicting court in the judgment of the case, with a requirement that a defendant confined in jail be discharged on habeas corpus by showing that the defendant was confined in jail as follows:

·         in violation of the bill's prohibitions against confining a person, including a child, for failure to pay fine or costs with respect to a fine-only offense or contempt of a judgment; or

·         as a result of failure to pay the applicable fine or cost imposed by a judgment entered for the conviction of a fine-only offense or contempt of such a judgment or, if the defendant is a child, contempt of an order of a justice or municipal court.

With respect to a defendant who defaults in the discharge of a judgment that has been entered against the defendant, the bill replaces the authorization for the judge to order the defendant to be confined in jail until discharged by law if the judge makes a written determination regarding the defendant's indigence and failure to make a good faith effort to discharge the fine and costs with an authorization for the judge to order the defendant to appear at a hearing and show cause as to why the defendant defaulted in discharging the judgment.

C.S.H.B. 303 requires a county or municipal jail, not later than September 2, 2023, to release each person who, on the bill's effective date, is confined in the county or municipal jail for failure to pay all or part of a fine or cost imposed for the conviction of a fine-only offense, contempt of a judgment entered for the conviction of a fine-only offense or contempt of an order of a justice or municipal court, if the person is a child.

C.S.H.B. 303 amends the Government Code to make conforming changes.

C.S.H.B. 303 repeals Articles 45.046(b) and 45.048(b), Code of Criminal Procedure.

C.S.H.B. 303 applies only to a judgment that has not been discharged before the bill's effective date and a judgment entered on or after the bill's effective date. The bill requires a county or municipal jail, not later than September 2, 2023, to release each person who, on the bill's effective date, is confined in the county or municipal jail for the following:

·         the failure to pay all or part of a fine or cost imposed for the conviction of an offense punishable by fine only, including confinement ordered under provisions relating to commitment of a defendant who defaults in the discharge of a judgment on a judge's determination regarding the defendant's indigence and failure to make a good faith effort to discharge the fine or costs, as those provisions existed before the bill's effective date;

·         contempt of a judgment entered for the conviction of a fine-only offense; or

·         contempt of an order of a justice or municipal court, if the person is a child who is at least 10 years of age and younger than 17 years of age.

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2023.

COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE

While C.S.H.B. 303 may differ from the introduced in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.

Whereas the introduced decreased the rate that a justice or judge is required to credit a defendant for time served in jail between arrest and sentence or pending appeal to the amount of the fine and costs from not less than $150 for each period served that is not less than eight hours or more than 24 hours, as specified by the justice or judge and authorized by statute, to not less than $100 for that period, the substitute retains the rate authorized by statute at not less than $150 for such period.

The substitute replaces the authorization for a municipality to enforce the collection of a fine by imprisonment of the defendant with a prohibition against the municipality enforcing the collection of a fine by imprisonment, whereas the introduced did not change that authorization.