Texas Senate Bill SB1420

Texas 2013 - 83rd Regular

Caption

Relating to court costs and fees in criminal proceedings.

Impact

The implications of SB1420 on state law are significant as it organizes the existing framework regarding criminal court costs into a more accessible format. This should enhance transparency for litigants who may face substantial costs associated with criminal proceedings. Additionally, it promotes uniformity across different jurisdictions by establishing fixed fees for specific services, like jury fees and juvenile case manager fees, thereby reducing variability in court cost applications across Texas's many jurisdictions.

Summary

SB1420 aims to amend the Texas statute concerning court costs and fees related to criminal proceedings. By transferring the relevant provisions from the Government Code to the Local Government Code, the bill establishes a clearer framework for how court costs are assessed and collected in various courts, including statutory county courts and municipal courts. It specifically enumerates various costs associated with different types of offenses, creating a structured fee schedule that will govern the costs imposed on defendants upon conviction.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment toward SB1420 appears to be positive among those who support streamlined court procedures and clearer guidelines for costs. Advocates argue that this clarity will benefit defendants by making them more aware of potential financial requirements ahead of court proceedings. However, there are concerns from some quarters about the potential burden these fees may impose on low-income defendants, raising questions about fairness in the judicial system.

Contention

Notable points of contention around SB1420 include arguments that the integration and amendment of the court cost provisions may lead to increased financial burdens on defendants, particularly those from underprivileged backgrounds. Critics worry that higher fees may exacerbate the difficulties faced by individuals already at risk, potentially leading to a higher rate of noncompliance with court mandates if individuals are unable to pay the associated costs. Opponents of the bill call for a more equitable approach to court costs that considers the economic realities faced by defendants.