BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.H.B. 2679 |
By: Guillen |
Criminal Jurisprudence |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Interested parties note that accepting a plea from an arrested person who is detained in jail for an unadjudicated fine-only offense is widely practiced in jurisdictions across Texas, as this method is convenient for both the court and the defendant. However, the parties point out that the practice is neither expressly sanctioned nor prohibited and concerns have been raised that the location of a plea may create a coercive atmosphere that impairs the voluntary aspect of the plea. C.S.H.B. 2679 seeks to endorse the efficient and convenient administration of the Texas criminal justice system by specifically authorizing such practices.
|
||||||
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. 2679 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to authorize a justice or judge of a justice or municipal court to permit a defendant who is detained in jail to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, a plea of nolo contendere, or the special plea of double jeopardy. The bill authorizes the justice or judge, after complying with the statutory duties of an arresting officer and magistrate and advising a defendant who enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere while detained in jail of the right to trial by jury, to accept the defendant's plea; assess a fine, determine costs, and accept payment of the fine and costs; give the defendant credit for time served; determine whether the defendant is indigent; or discharge the defendant, as appropriate. The bill requires a motion for new trial following a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to be made not later than 10 days after the rendition of judgment and sentence, and not afterward, and requires the justice or judge to grant a motion for new trial made under the bill's provisions.
|
||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2013.
|
||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 2679 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.
|
||||||
|