2008

Court Security: So You Want to Start a Court Security Program?

Article 102.017 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows municipalities, if an ordinance is passed, to collect a fee of $3.00 as a cost of court from anyone convicted of a misdemeanor offense. The article provides that the funds may be used to finance items for the purpose of providing security services for municipal courts. This session will examine the history of the court security fund, the statute, and relevant cases and attorney general opinions. Participants will learn how to formulate a program that complies with the statute.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:

1. Determine the provisions necessary for an court security ordinance;

2. Determine how the court security fund may be properly used for their courts; and,

3. Formulate a program for their courts that complies with the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Procedural/Substantive Law Update

This session will cover new or altered fine-only offenses from the Penal Code, Agriculture Code, Health and Safety Code, Occupations Code, and other statutes. The elements, fine ranges and defenses to the offenses will all be discussed. This session will also center on changes made to the Code of Criminal Procedure and Government Code that alter procedures followed in municipal court.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:

1. Identify legislative changes that will affect the adjudication of criminal cases in municipal courts;

2. Locate new statutory provisions applicable to municipal courts; and,

3. Discuss the ethical implications of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct in light of the show cause requirements of HB 2267.

Traffic Safety Update

This session will detail changes in procedural and substantive law contained in the Texas Transportation Code.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:
1.    Identify traffic safety legislative changes that affect municipal court;
2.    Apply legislative changes to existing procedures in municipal court;
3.    Explain to court staff new procedures required by legislative changes; and,
4.    Identify ways judges can ethically facilitate traffic safety education in their communities in compliance with Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Ethics: The Role of the Court in City Government - City Councils are from Mars and Municipal Judges are from Venus

This presentation outlines some of the ethical issues involved in the interaction between municipal courts and the rest of city government. Specifically, the presentation will show how the Canons of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct can guide the relationship between a municipal judge and a city's elected officials and management staff. Attendees will analyze the concept of an independent judiciary and identify applicable Judicial Canons of Conduct. In addition, attendees will look at specific issues to determine whether they are within the scope of judicial discretion, and learn techniques for establishing and maintaining a professional relationship with elected officials and management staff.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:

1. Explain the concept of an independent judiciary and recognize applicable judicial canons;

2. Determine whether an issue is within the scope of judicial discretion; and,

3. Demonstrate techniques for establishing and maintaining a professional relationship with elected officials and management staff.

Case Law Update and Attorney General Opinions

This course is designed to keep municipal judges apprised of recent events in case law and to identify opinions of interest issued by the Office of the Texas Attorney General.

By the end of this session, judges will be able to:

1. Explain how recent federal and state court decisions affect procedural and substantive legal issues in municipal courts;

2. Explain how recent federal and state court decisions affect procedural and substantive legal issues pertaining to state magistrates;

3. Summarize Texas Attorney General Opinions of interest to municipal courts; and,

4. Describe the ethical implications of In re Hecht.

Juvenile/Municipal Law Issues Update

The session will inform participants of changes to the Local Government Code and other laws relating to the prosecution of city ordinance violations in municipal court. The session will also focus on legislative changes affecting the adjudication of offenses committed by juveniles.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:

1. Identify provisions of the law relating to municipalities affected by new legislation;

2. Identify provisions of the law relating to juveniles affected by new legislation; and,

3. Analyze procedures within their municipal court that must change to comply with new legislative changes.

DOT & Federal Motor Carrier Law

Effective enforcement of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“FMCSR”) requires a partnership of federal, state and local government. Effective enforcement also requires extensive training of local police in an area of little familiarity to most municipal judges. With the ever expanding number of municipalities that are authorized to enforce both the FMCSRs and vehicle weight standards, municipal judges are entering this arena in increasing numbers. A review of relevant federal and state authority provides a judge with a place of beginning to better understand this area of traffic law.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:

1.    Identify the authority for a municipal court’s jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act;
2.    Define frequent terms used in federal motor carrier cases;
3.    Describe the uniform citation used by officers trained to enforce federal motor carrier laws; and,
4.    Discuss the range of punishment and implications of convictions for violations.

JNAs: How to Get It Right

Many juvenile cases are processed in municipal courts throughout the state. Frequently the juvenile fails to successfully complete the Order of the Court; and in some instances, the juvenile simply fails to appear in court at all. Often these juvenile cases are still pending in court when the juvenile becomes an adult as defined by law. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides specific and certain statutes for dealing with this population, termed the “Juvenile Now Adult.” This class will first discuss the critical steps the court must take before a capias pro fine may issue for a juvenile, who is now an adult, who has failed to pay as ordered by the court. Second, this class will identify the means available to the court in handling cases in which a juvenile has failed to appear, and the juvenile has now become an adult, specifically discussing Article 45.060 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “Unadjudicated Children, Now Adults; Notice on Reaching Age of Majority; Offense.”

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:

1. Find applicable law affecting children, now adults;

2. Identify the steps a court must complete before additional action may be taken against children, now adults; and,

3. Formulate strategies for applying these laws to court procedures and to cases in front of the judge.

Pre-Trial Appeals: Yes, Virginia, There is a State’s Appeal

Though most criminal appeals involve defendants appealing a finding of guilt, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes attorneys representing the State to appeal in limited circumstances. Though rare, judges must be prepared to identify the circumstances when the State has the right to appeal and the differences between such appeals from record and non-record municipal courts.

By the end of the course, judges will be able to:
1.    Describe statutory parameters of Article 44.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
2.    Analyze controlling case law;
3.    Describe situations in which the State may appeal a pre-trial decision; and
4.    Apply rules of appellate procedure and set deadlines for parties and court.

Complaints

Texas law provides that words will be read in context and construed according to common usage and rules of grammar. Though the Court of Criminal Appeals has consistently construed this principle to mean that the judiciary must give effect to the “plain meaning” of words, this unfortunately does not always eliminate confusion. While seasoned users of the Code of Criminal Procedure may already be familiar with its ambiguous use of the word “complaint,” a word of caution is advised to the uninitiated. This session will involve a discussion of the Code’s unfortunate failure to distinguish between the various ways in which the term “complaint” is used and its ramifications on the municipal court.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:
1.    Differentiate between the complaint described in Chapter 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (affidavit in support of an arrest warrant) from the complaint described in Chapter 45 of the Codes of Criminal Procedure (charging instruments);
2.    Determine whether a complaint as a charging instrument gives the defendant sufficient knowledge of the particular criminal violation with which they have been charged;
3.    Identify a valid complaint for a continuing violation (i.e., multiple daily violations of a statue);
4.    Evaluate whether a complaint has been filed or amended within the required time period; and,
5.    Recognize the different types of motions by which a complaint can be challenged.

Nonappearance Crimes

When a defendant lawfully released from custody with or without bail intentionally and knowingly fails to appear in accordance with the term of the release, the defendant may be charged with the offense of failure to appear. This offense is a Class C misdemeanor if the offense for which the actor’s appearance was required is punishable by fine only. In contrast, a person who willfully violates a written promise to appear in court commits a misdemeanor regardless of the disposition of the charge on which the person was arrested. The offense of violation of promise to appear may be charged only when the underlying offense is an offense of Subtitle C, Rules of the Road, Transportation Code. These two nonappearance crimes cause confusion for many courts. This session will focus on distinguishing the two nonappearance crimes of failure to appear and violate promise to appear.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:
1.    Differentiate various crimes of nonappearance;
2.    Identify the elements of Failure to Appear;
3.    Identify the elements of Violations of Promise to Appear; and,
4.    Identify how local ordinances can create additional crimes of nonappearance.

Records Retention & Destruction

The Texas State Library and Archives Commission has established mandatory retention schedules for local governments. Courts must adhere to the state requirements for the maintenance, records retention, and destruction of records. This session will familiarize judges with state laws pertaining to records management.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:
1.    List the elements of a record’s life cycle;
2.    Describe State rules regarding records retention;
3.    Explain criteria for destroying records and the methods of destroying records;
4.    Identify the steps to develop a records management plan; and,
5.    Discuss common filing problems and solutions.

Optional Debriefing Session

This course is designed to provide judges with an opportunity to address a broad range of questions pertaining to their participation in the day’s sessions. The course will be structured around questions submitted by the participants.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:

1. Identify trends in the adjudication of criminal cases in municipal courts; and,

2. Locate statutory provisions applicable to common legal questions encountered by municipal courts.

Juvenile Law: Failure to Attend School & Charges against Parents

This presentation provides judges with a detailed overview of the Class C misdemeanor offenses of Failure to Attend School and Parent Contributing to Non-Attendance. Attendees will engage in discussions regarding these types of offenses and the advantages (or disadvantages) of handling these cases in municipal court. Attendees will also analyze the various statutes contained in the Education Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to these offenses and learn how to apply this knowledge their court cases. Additionally, participants will evaluate court cases, opinions of the Attorney General’s Office, and recent legislative enactments impacting this area of the law.

By the end of the session, participants will be able to:

1. Discuss and explain why FTAS and Parent Contributing to Non-Attendance cases are filed in justice and municipal courts;

2. Analyze the various statutes in the Education Code and Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to FTAS and Parent Contributing to Non-Attendance;

3. Analyze current case law and/or Office of the Attorney General opinions that may help to clarify this area of the law; and,

4. Assess whether justice and municipal courts can make a difference in the lives of school children in Texas by effectively enforcing our compulsory education laws.

DUIs

Section 106.01 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code defines minor to mean a person under the age of 21. A minor who is at least age 10 and under age 17 is also a child by Family Code definition and, in some instances, referred to as a child in the Alcoholic Beverage Code. Specific authority over alcohol offenses is given to municipal courts in Article 4.14(b)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That statute says that municipal courts have jurisdiction over cases that arise under Chapter 106, Alcoholic Beverage Code, that do not include confinement as an authorized sanction.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:

1. Identify key statutory provisions relating to the adjudication of cases involving minors and alcohol;

2. Determine if a case involving a minor in their court properly falls within their jurisdiction; and,

3. Analyze statutory provisions relating to minors and alcohol related offenses.

Unlimited Restitution, Are You Kidding Me?

House Bill 485 amends article 45.041 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by changing how much restitution must be paid to victims of offenses. The impact of the bill is broad. Courts governed by Chapter 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will no longer have a statutory cap on the amount of restitution that the court can order defendants to pay. This session will analyze the impact of this significant change on municipal courts.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:

1. Identify when and how much restitution can be ordered in municipal court;

2. Distinguish civil damages from criminal restitution; and,

3. Discuss the ethical implications of granting restitution.

Magistration Duties

HB 2391 amends Article 15.17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by creating Subsection (g) which provides that a magistrate who processes a defendant that was issued a citation for a Class A or B misdemeanor perform magistrate duties in the same manner as if the person had been arrested and brought before the magistrate by a peace officer. After “magistrating” the judge may, unless good cause is shown, release the person on a personal recognizance bond. If the defendant fails to appear, the magistrate shall issue an arrest warrant for the defendant.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:
1.    Describe the role of the magistrate and define procedures for presentation of an arrested individual before the magistrate;
2.    List statutory requirements for presentation of an arrested person before a magistrate;
3.    Review statutory time requirements and provisions for release when no probable cause has been determined; and,
4.    Discuss potential impact of HB 2391 regarding the release of certain misdemeanor defendants on Class A and B violations.

Judgments, Affirmative Findings, & Enhancements

This presentation provides judges with an evolving fact pattern that presents the many facets of enhancement. Attendees will get an overview of the requirements of a judgment that will support enhanced punishment, as well as what aggravation evidence the prosecutor has to present to support affirmative findings for enhancement of a punishment as well as the offenses that get enhanced for a subsequent violation. The participants will be asked to review the law on what a judgment must contain to support enhancement and the ethical considerations of dealing with a defendant with a history known to the judge but not presented in open court.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:
1.    Identify elements/requirements of a valid judgment;
2.    Discuss the concept of affirmative findings and list offenses which require affirmative findings to support enhancements;
3.    Discuss the consequences of an invalid or insufficient judgment; and,
4.    Recognize the ethical issues involved with using knowledge of prior proceedings to trigger enhancements.

Court Costs & Legislative Update on Court Costs

This session will cover changes in Texas law relating to courts costs and changes in law impacting the administration of municipal courts.

By the end of the session, judges will be able to:

1. Determine the proper amount of state court costs and fees that should be assessed and collected on conviction of offenses in municipal court; and,

2. Describe what constitutes a “conviction” for the purpose of determining when state court costs and fees should be assessed and collected.

Warrants, Capias and Capias Pro Fines

A lack of definitions in the Code of Criminal Procedure compounded by inconsistent use of terminology by appellate courts has resulted in great confusion surrounding the difference between a capias, an arrest warrant, and a capias pro fine. While the issuance of each writ results in a person being arrested, the circumstances, procedures, and authority to issue each writ differs. More than a matter of semantics, failure to discriminate between the various applications of each writ impacts the administration of justice and potentially the rights of defendants. HB 3060 seeks to end much of the confusion surrounding the use of the three writs by conforming to the original chronological chapter structure of the Code of Criminal Procedure as written in 1965.

By the end of the session, participants shall be able to:
1.    Describe the difference between a warrant, capias, and capias pro fine;
2.    Compare the purpose of the capias in Chapter 23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the capias in Chapter 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and,
3.    Explain legislative changes and new procedural requirements for a capias pro fine.