BILL ANALYSIS



H.B. 3073
By: Gallego
C.S.H.B. 3073
By: Thompson
4-25-95
Committee Report (Substituted)


BACKGROUND

     Currently, a court of appeals has no jurisdiction over the
legal functions of a magistrate.  Because of this lack of power,
cases that involve an appeal must be kicked back to the lower
court, and are then referred to the court of criminal appeals. 
This time consuming process can cause a case to be dismissed
because the governing statute expires.  What is necessary is a
statute that gives a court of appeal the jurisdiction over a
district judge acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry in the
court of appeals district.


PURPOSE

     This bill allows an appeals court to issue all writs of
mandamus against a judge of a district court who is acting as a
magistrate at a court of inquiry in the appellate district.


RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

     It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not
expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state
officer, department, agency or institution.


SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

     SECTION 1 amends Government Code Section 22.221(b) to provide
that each court of appeals can issue writs of mandamus against a
district judge acting as a magistrate pursuant to Chapter 52 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure as well as a judge of a district or
county court in the appellate district.

     SECTION 2.  Application of act.

     SECTION 3.  Effective date.

     SECTION 4.  Emergency clause.


COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

     Section 1 of the substitute substitutes "acting as a
magistrate" for "in the capacity of a magistrate" and replaces
"pursuant to Chapter 52" with "under Chapter 52".
     Section 2 of the substitute replaces references to "cases"
with "proceedings".
     Sections 3 and 4 are the same in both versions.


SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

     Pursuant to a public notice posted on April 20, 1995, the
Committee on Judicial Affairs met in a public hearing on April 25,
1995, to consider H.B. 3073.  The Chair laid out H.B. 3073 and
recognized the author, Rep. Gallego, to explain the bill.  The
Chair offered and laid out a complete committee substitute.  The
Chair recognized Rep. Gallego to explain the substitute.  There
were no witnesses to testify.  The Chair moved adoption of the
substitute.  There being no objection, the substitute was adopted. 
The Chair moved that H.B. 3073, as substituted, be reported
favorably back to the full House with the recommendation that it do
pass, be printed and sent to the Calendars Committee.  The motion
prevailed by the following record vote:  5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 PNV and
3 absent.  Following further discussion, the Chair moved to
reconsider the vote on which H.B. 3073, as substituted, passed from
committee.  There were no objections.  The Chair laid out H.B.
3073, as substituted.  The Chair moved that H.B. 3073, as
substituted, be reported favorably back to the full House with the
recommendation that it do pass, be printed and sent to the Local &
Consent Calendars Committee.  The motion prevailed by the following
record vote:  6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 PNV and 3 absent.