LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE, 85TH LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION April 9, 2017 TO: Honorable Joe Moody, Chair, House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence FROM: Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:HB3016 by Thompson, Senfronia (Relating to the eligibility of a criminal defendant for an order of nondisclosure of criminal history record information.), As Introduced The bill would have a positive, but indeterminate, fiscal impact to the state due to anticipated increases in civil filing fee revenue associated with an increase in the number of persons filing a petition for an order of nondisclosure; however, the number of additional petitions for an order of nondisclosure cannot be determined. The bill would amend the Government Code and Code of Criminal Procedure to modify various provisions related to the eligibility of a criminal defendant for an order of nondisclosure of criminal history record information. The bill would allow a defendant convicted of a state jail felony for possession of certain controlled substances to petition the court for an order of nondisclosure and would remove requirements that a person must have served a period of confinement in order to qualify for an order of nondisclosure for these offenses. The bill would allow defendants convicted of driving while intoxicated if charged as a class B misdemeanor, to petition the court for an order of nondisclosure. The bill would extend the basic requirement for receiving an order of nondisclosure to persons placed on community supervision. The bill would require a judge who determines that it is not in the best interest of justice for a defendant to receive an automatic order of nondisclosure to make an affirmative finding of the fact and file a statement of that affirmative finding in the case file. Finally, the bill would expend the current nondisclosure laws to offenses committed before, on, or after the bill's effective date of September 1, 2017.The Office of Court Administration (OCA) anticipates that the bill would increase the number of petitioners for an order of nondisclosure; however, the number of individuals who would file a petition cannot be determined. Petitions for an order of nondisclosure require filing fees for all petitioners that are not considered indigent. Therefore, any increase in the number of petitioners would have a positive fiscal impact to the state. OCA anticipates that duties and responsibilities associated with implementing the provisions of the bill could be accomplished utilizing existing resources. Local Government Impact According to the OCA, the number of defendants eligible for an order of nondisclosure would increase, however, the agency is unable to determine the number of these defendants that would file a petition for an order of nondisclosure. Any increase in the number of petitions for an order of nondisclosure would result in an increase in civil filing fee revenue. Therefore, the agency anticipates a positive, but indeterminate, fiscal impact to local governments. Tom-Green County reported no fiscal impact under the provisions of the bill. Source Agencies:212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, 696 Department of Criminal Justice, 405 Department of Public Safety LBB Staff: UP, PBO, JGA, KJo, MW, GDz
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 85TH LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
April 9, 2017
TO: Honorable Joe Moody, Chair, House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence FROM: Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:HB3016 by Thompson, Senfronia (Relating to the eligibility of a criminal defendant for an order of nondisclosure of criminal history record information.), As Introduced
TO: Honorable Joe Moody, Chair, House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence
FROM: Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: HB3016 by Thompson, Senfronia (Relating to the eligibility of a criminal defendant for an order of nondisclosure of criminal history record information.), As Introduced
Honorable Joe Moody, Chair, House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence
Honorable Joe Moody, Chair, House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence
Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board
Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board
HB3016 by Thompson, Senfronia (Relating to the eligibility of a criminal defendant for an order of nondisclosure of criminal history record information.), As Introduced
HB3016 by Thompson, Senfronia (Relating to the eligibility of a criminal defendant for an order of nondisclosure of criminal history record information.), As Introduced
The bill would have a positive, but indeterminate, fiscal impact to the state due to anticipated increases in civil filing fee revenue associated with an increase in the number of persons filing a petition for an order of nondisclosure; however, the number of additional petitions for an order of nondisclosure cannot be determined.
The bill would have a positive, but indeterminate, fiscal impact to the state due to anticipated increases in civil filing fee revenue associated with an increase in the number of persons filing a petition for an order of nondisclosure; however, the number of additional petitions for an order of nondisclosure cannot be determined.
The bill would amend the Government Code and Code of Criminal Procedure to modify various provisions related to the eligibility of a criminal defendant for an order of nondisclosure of criminal history record information. The bill would allow a defendant convicted of a state jail felony for possession of certain controlled substances to petition the court for an order of nondisclosure and would remove requirements that a person must have served a period of confinement in order to qualify for an order of nondisclosure for these offenses. The bill would allow defendants convicted of driving while intoxicated if charged as a class B misdemeanor, to petition the court for an order of nondisclosure. The bill would extend the basic requirement for receiving an order of nondisclosure to persons placed on community supervision. The bill would require a judge who determines that it is not in the best interest of justice for a defendant to receive an automatic order of nondisclosure to make an affirmative finding of the fact and file a statement of that affirmative finding in the case file. Finally, the bill would expend the current nondisclosure laws to offenses committed before, on, or after the bill's effective date of September 1, 2017.The Office of Court Administration (OCA) anticipates that the bill would increase the number of petitioners for an order of nondisclosure; however, the number of individuals who would file a petition cannot be determined. Petitions for an order of nondisclosure require filing fees for all petitioners that are not considered indigent. Therefore, any increase in the number of petitioners would have a positive fiscal impact to the state. OCA anticipates that duties and responsibilities associated with implementing the provisions of the bill could be accomplished utilizing existing resources.
Local Government Impact
According to the OCA, the number of defendants eligible for an order of nondisclosure would increase, however, the agency is unable to determine the number of these defendants that would file a petition for an order of nondisclosure. Any increase in the number of petitions for an order of nondisclosure would result in an increase in civil filing fee revenue. Therefore, the agency anticipates a positive, but indeterminate, fiscal impact to local governments. Tom-Green County reported no fiscal impact under the provisions of the bill.
Source Agencies: 212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, 696 Department of Criminal Justice, 405 Department of Public Safety
212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, 696 Department of Criminal Justice, 405 Department of Public Safety
LBB Staff: UP, PBO, JGA, KJo, MW, GDz
UP, PBO, JGA, KJo, MW, GDz