Texas Senate Bill SB925

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

Caption

Relating to the creation of a court record preservation fund; imposing a fee.

Impact

The funds collected from this fee will ostensibly be dedicated to the digitization and preservation of court records, protecting them from potential natural disasters. The bill outlines the administrative responsibilities of how these funds will be collected and handled, stating that they will be directed to the county treasurer or another designated official. Such a fund aims not only to safeguard essential legal documents but also to modernize record-keeping practices, which could streamline access to court records for legal processes.

Summary

SB925 proposes the establishment of a court record preservation fund in Texas, specifically targeting counties adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico and those with a population of 3.3 million or more. The bill mandates that defendants convicted in county courts, statutory county courts, or district courts within these specified regions will be required to pay a preservation fee not to exceed $10. This fee will be imposed as a cost of court upon their conviction, including when a sentence is imposed, community supervision is given, or the court defers final disposition of the case.

Contention

One notable point of contention surrounding SB925 could stem from the financial burden it places on defendants, even if it is a nominal fee. Critics may argue that introducing such a fee, regardless of the amount, adds to the existing costs that individuals face when navigating the criminal justice system, which could disproportionately affect low-income defendants. Furthermore, concerns may arise regarding the efficient and transparent use of the funds collected, as ensuring that they are properly allocated for their intended purpose of record preservation will be crucial to the bill's credibility.

Final_notes

Overall, SB925 reflects an initiative to improve court record management while addressing vulnerabilities that such records may face, especially in disaster-prone areas. The implementation and reception of this bill may hinge on broader discussions about judicial costs, accessibility, and the dynamics between state legislative mandates and local administrative capabilities.