Texas Senate Bill SB1681

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 3/11/11
• Out of Senate Committee: 4/20/11
• Voted on by Senate: 4/29/11
• Refer: 3/23/11
• Out of House Committee: 5/12/11
• Report Pass: 4/20/11
• Voted on by House: 5/23/11
• Engrossed: 4/29/11
• Governor Action: 6/17/11
• Refer: 5/2/11
• Report Pass: 5/11/11
• Enrolled: 5/23/11
• Passed: 6/17/11

Caption

Relating to the appointment of counsel and the rights of an accused and other requirements for the purposes of appellate proceedings or community supervision revocation proceedings.

Impact

The passage of SB1681 would reinforce the legal framework surrounding the appointment of counsel and provide better safeguards for defendants' rights. By establishing clear guidelines for appointing attorneys, the bill aims to reduce discrepancies and delays that often plague the criminal justice system when providing legal aid to indigent defendants. This reform could lead to a more equitable legal process, ultimately enhancing defendants’ abilities to navigate the complexities of their cases without the disadvantage of lacking representation.

Summary

SB1681 seeks to reform the process of appointing counsel for indigent defendants in Texas criminal cases. The bill mandates that judges in counties establish written, countywide procedures for the timely and fair appointment of legal representation to defendants who cannot afford an attorney. This legislation emphasizes a systematic approach whereby courts are required to utilize a rotation system from a public appointment list, ensuring that all indigent defendants receive adequate representation, particularly during appellate proceedings or community supervision revocation. The intent of this bill is to strengthen the rights of defendants and uphold the integrity of the judicial process in Texas.

Contention

However, there are concerns regarding the implementation of the new procedures and potential impacts on local judicial practices. Some stakeholders argue that the bill could create additional administrative burdens for courts already facing resource constraints. Additionally, there is apprehension about how effectively the appointed attorneys will meet the necessary qualifications and ensure sufficient legal representation in cases where defendants' futures may be significantly impacted. Critics may voice that while enhancing the rights of defendants is crucial, the balance of managing the courts' operational capabilities must also be carefully considered.