LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE, 84TH LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION April 24, 2015 TO: Honorable Abel Herrero, Chair, House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence FROM: Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:HB2525 by Coleman (relating to the appointment of counsel to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated. The bill would amend the Code of Criminal Appeals to specify in certain cases a magistrate in the arresting county must transfer any request for counsel to the appointing authority in the warrant-issuing county within 24 hours after the arrested individual requests the counsel. The bill would permit an arresting county to seek from the county that issued the warrant reimbursement for the actual costs paid by the arresting county for the appointed counsel. Under the provisions of the bill, if the arrested person is taken before a magistrate of a county other than the county that issued the warrant, the magistrate would be required to inform the arrested person of the procedures for requesting appointment of counsel and ensure the individual receives reasonable assistance in completing the forms. The bill would require the appointing authority in the warrant-issuing county to appoint counsel within a certain timeline regardless of whether the individual is present in the county. The bill would require the arresting county to immediately appoint counsel after the tenth day the individual is in custody of the arresting county to represent the individual in certain court proceedings. The Office of Court Administration reported no significant fiscal impact to the state court system is anticipated. Local Government Impact There could be costs associated with the appointment of attorneys in these cases; however, those costs could be offset by the reduced jail detention time of holding an individual. These cost would depend on how many individuals are arrested on warrants issued out of county and if the county arrested the individual or issued the warrant.According to the Texas Association of Counties, the bill would create a cost shift from counties that arrested individuals on out of county warrants to the counties that issued the warrants. Source Agencies:212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council LBB Staff: UP, KJo, SD, EK
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 84TH LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
April 24, 2015
TO: Honorable Abel Herrero, Chair, House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence FROM: Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:HB2525 by Coleman (relating to the appointment of counsel to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
TO: Honorable Abel Herrero, Chair, House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence
FROM: Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: HB2525 by Coleman (relating to the appointment of counsel to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
Honorable Abel Herrero, Chair, House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence
Honorable Abel Herrero, Chair, House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence
Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board
Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board
HB2525 by Coleman (relating to the appointment of counsel to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
HB2525 by Coleman (relating to the appointment of counsel to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
The bill would amend the Code of Criminal Appeals to specify in certain cases a magistrate in the arresting county must transfer any request for counsel to the appointing authority in the warrant-issuing county within 24 hours after the arrested individual requests the counsel. The bill would permit an arresting county to seek from the county that issued the warrant reimbursement for the actual costs paid by the arresting county for the appointed counsel. Under the provisions of the bill, if the arrested person is taken before a magistrate of a county other than the county that issued the warrant, the magistrate would be required to inform the arrested person of the procedures for requesting appointment of counsel and ensure the individual receives reasonable assistance in completing the forms. The bill would require the appointing authority in the warrant-issuing county to appoint counsel within a certain timeline regardless of whether the individual is present in the county. The bill would require the arresting county to immediately appoint counsel after the tenth day the individual is in custody of the arresting county to represent the individual in certain court proceedings. The Office of Court Administration reported no significant fiscal impact to the state court system is anticipated.
Local Government Impact
There could be costs associated with the appointment of attorneys in these cases; however, those costs could be offset by the reduced jail detention time of holding an individual. These cost would depend on how many individuals are arrested on warrants issued out of county and if the county arrested the individual or issued the warrant.According to the Texas Association of Counties, the bill would create a cost shift from counties that arrested individuals on out of county warrants to the counties that issued the warrants.
Source Agencies: 212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council
212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council
LBB Staff: UP, KJo, SD, EK
UP, KJo, SD, EK