Texas 2015 - 84th Regular

Texas Senate Bill SB1686 Latest Draft

Bill / Introduced Version Filed 03/13/2015

Download
.pdf .doc .html
                            By: Ellis S.B. No. 1686


 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
 AN ACT
 Relating to revocation of community supervision for use or
 possession of small amounts of marihuana.
 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
 SECTION 1.  Sections 21 Article 42.12, Code of Criminal
 Procedure, are amended to read as follows:
 (a)  At any time during the period of community supervision
 the judge may issue a warrant for violation of any of the conditions
 of the community supervision and cause a defendant convicted under
 Section 43.02, Penal Code, or under Chapter 481, Health and Safety
 Code, or Sections 485.031 through 485.035, Health and Safety Code,
 or placed on deferred adjudication after being charged with one of
 those offenses, to be subject to the control measures of Section
 81.083, Health and Safety Code, and to the court-ordered-management
 provisions of Subchapter G, Chapter 81, Health and Safety Code.
 (b)  At any time during the period of community supervision
 the judge may issue a warrant for violation of any of the conditions
 of the community supervision and cause the defendant to be
 arrested. Any supervision officer, police officer or other officer
 with power of arrest may arrest such defendant with or without a
 warrant upon the order of the judge to be noted on the docket of the
 court. Subject to Subsection (b-1), a defendant arrested under
 this subsection may be detained in the county jail or other
 appropriate place of confinement until he can be taken before the
 judge for a determination regarding the alleged violation. The
 arresting officer shall immediately report the arrest and detention
 to the judge.
 (b-1)  Without any unnecessary delay, but not later than 48
 hours after the person is arrested, the arresting officer or the
 person with custody of the arrested person shall take the arrested
 person before the judge who ordered the arrest for the alleged
 violation of a condition of community supervision or, if the judge
 is unavailable, before a magistrate of the county in which the
 person was arrested. The judge or magistrate shall perform all
 appropriate duties and may exercise all appropriate powers as
 provided by Article 15.17 with respect to an arrest for a new
 criminal offense, except that only the judge who ordered the arrest
 for the alleged violation may authorize the person's release on
 bail. The arrested person may be taken before the judge or
 magistrate under this subsection by means of an electronic
 broadcast system as provided by and subject to the requirements of
 Article 15.17.
 (b-2)  If the defendant has not been released on bail as
 permitted under Subsection (b-1), on motion by the defendant the
 judge who ordered the arrest for the alleged violation of a
 condition of community supervision shall cause the defendant to be
 brought before the judge for a hearing on the alleged violation
 within 20 days of filing of said motion, and after a hearing without
 a jury, may either continue, extend, modify, or revoke the
 community supervision. A judge may revoke the community
 supervision of a defendant who is imprisoned in a penal institution
 without a hearing if the defendant in writing before a court of
 record in the jurisdiction where imprisoned waives his right to a
 hearing and to counsel, affirms that he has nothing to say as to why
 sentence should not be pronounced against him, and requests the
 judge to revoke community supervision and to pronounce sentence.
 In a felony case, the state may amend the motion to revoke community
 supervision any time up to seven days before the date of the
 revocation hearing, after which time the motion may not be amended
 except for good cause shown, and in no event may the state amend the
 motion after the commencement of taking evidence at the hearing.
 The judge may continue the hearing for good cause shown by either
 the defendant or the state.
 (c)  The court may not revoke the community supervision of a
 defendant if, at the community supervision revocation hearing, the
 court finds that the only evidence supporting the alleged violation
 of a condition of community supervision is the uncorroborated
 results of a polygraph examination.  In a community supervision
 revocation hearing at which it is alleged only that the defendant
 violated the conditions of community supervision by failing to pay
 compensation paid to appointed counsel, community supervision
 fees, or court costs, the state must prove by a preponderance of the
 evidence that the defendant was able to pay and did not pay as
 ordered by the judge. The court may order a community supervision
 and corrections department to obtain information pertaining to the
 factors listed under Article 42.037(h) and include that information
 in the report required under Section 9(a) or a separate report, as
 the court directs.
 (d)  A defendant has a right to counsel at a hearing under
 this section. The court shall appoint counsel for an indigent
 defendant in accordance with the procedures adopted under Article
 26.04.
 (e)  A court retains jurisdiction to hold a hearing under
 Subsection (b-2) and to revoke, continue, or modify community
 supervision, regardless of whether the period of community
 supervision imposed on the defendant has expired, if before the
 expiration the attorney representing the state files a motion to
 revoke, continue, or modify community supervision and a capias is
 issued for the arrest of the defendant.
 (f)  A court may not revoke the community supervision of a
 defendant if, at the community supervision revocation hearing, the
 court finds that the only evidence supporting the alleged violation
 of a condition of community supervision involves conduct that would
 constitute a misdemeanor under Sec. 481.121 of the Health & Safety
 Code, unless there is sufficient evidence of an additional
 violation other than failing to pay compensation paid to appointed
 counsel, community supervision fees, or court costs when the state
 has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was
 able to pay and did not pay as ordered by the judge.