BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.H.B. 36 |
By: Menéndez |
Criminal Jurisprudence |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Interested parties report that aerosol paint is the most frequently used substance in defacing public and private property. The parties contend that current Texas laws regarding graffiti do not sufficiently deter individuals from tagging building surfaces or making any other mark or graffiti on these surfaces. C.S.H.B. 36 seeks to further discourage graffiti offenses by making changes in the criminal penalty for and civil consequences of damaging property with graffiti.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 36 amends the Penal Code to enhance the penalty for a subsequent conviction of graffiti to the next higher category of offense and to establish that a defendant has been previously convicted if the person was adjudged guilty or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in return for a grant of deferred adjudication, regardless of whether the sentence for the offense was ever imposed or probated and the defendant subsequently discharged from community supervision. The bill specifies that a conviction under the laws of another state for an offense containing elements substantially similar to the elements of a Texas graffiti offense is considered a conviction under Texas graffiti laws. The bill includes a city hall, a courthouse, a historic structure, and a cultural resource site or area, such as a site or area containing petroglyphs or pictographs, among the places on which the commission of a graffiti offense causing less than $20,000 in pecuniary loss results in a penalty enhancement to a state jail felony.
C.S.H.B. 36 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to require a court granting community supervision to a defendant convicted of a graffiti offense to require as a condition of community supervision that the defendant submit to not less than 12 and no more than 48 hours of confinement in county jail, in addition to community service requirements after release from jail.
C.S.H.B. 36 amends the Family Code to require a juvenile court in a disposition hearing for a child who has been adjudicated to have engaged in delinquent conduct involving marking a historic structure, or other specified building, monument, or cultural resource site or area, or private property and who has previously been adjudicated for having engaged in delinquent conduct that constitutes a graffiti offense to order the child and the parent or other person responsible for the child's support to make restitution by personally restoring the property with consent of the property owner, except under certain circumstances relating to the physical or mental capability of the person restoring the property or the dangerous nature of the restoration.
C.S.H.B. 36 amends the Transportation Code to require a juvenile court to order the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to suspend a person's driver's license or provisional license or deny an application for reinstatement or issuance of a driver's license or provisional license if the person has been adjudicated to have engaged in conduct that constitutes a graffiti offense. The bill requires, rather than authorizes, a court to order DPS to suspend a person's driver's license or deny such an application on conviction of a graffiti offense. The bill extends the period of license suspension from one year to two years after the date of a final conviction of a graffiti offense or after the date on which a disposition by a juvenile court is made, as applicable, and extends the period of license denial for such a conviction or adjudication from one year to two years after the date the person applies for reinstatement or issuance of a provisional license or driver's license. The bill specifies that a person whose license is suspended remains eligible to receive a hardship license.
C.S.H.B. 36 amends the Civil Practice and Remedies Code to make a nonsubstantive change.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2013.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 36 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and highlighted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|