Texas Senate Bill SB106

Texas 2019 - 86th Regular

Caption

Relating to the punishment for certain intoxication offenses and the eligibility for deferred adjudication community supervision of defendants who committed certain intoxication offenses.

Impact

The bill impacts state laws by refining the eligibility for deferred adjudication, making it more stringent for individuals charged with specific intoxication offenses. Notably, persons charged with offenses involving a high blood alcohol concentration (0.16 or more) or commercial driver violations are ineligible for deferred adjudication. Additionally, the legislation requires judges to impose ignition interlock device conditions on defendants granted community supervision for specific offenses, establishing a mechanism to prevent intoxicated driving. This could result in decreased recidivism rates and increased public safety.

Summary

SB106 introduces significant modifications to Texas law regarding the punishment of intoxication offenses and the eligibility criteria for deferred adjudication community supervision. By amending Article 42A.102 and Article 42A.408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bill specifies under which conditions judges may grant community supervision to defendants charged with certain intoxication-related offenses. Offenses covered include those under Penal Code sections relating to operating vehicles while intoxicated, thereby aiming to enhance public safety and accountability for repeat offenders.

Contention

There are notable points of contention surrounding SB106. Proponents argue that the enhanced penalties and requirements are necessary to deter driving while intoxicated, particularly among repeat offenders, thereby promoting safer roads. However, critics may raise concerns about the implications for judicial discretion, especially regarding the imposition of mandatory ignition interlock devices as a condition of community supervision. This could be perceived as an additional financial burden on defendants and may impact the efficacy of rehabilitation efforts. It brings forward debates on balancing criminal accountability with the restorative justice approaches often employed in such cases.