Posts Tagged ‘Mississippi’

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: South Dakota governor signs, dead in Florida, failing to advance in any other states

March 13th, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.
If February was the active month for legislative bans on court use of sharia/international law, March may turn out to be the quiet month.

Yesterday (March 12) South Dakota’s governor signed into law HB 1253 which reads “No court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code.”

The other activity, or lack thereof, was in Florida where that state’s multiple efforts failed to advance before that legislature adjourned. (Missouri’s Rules Committee passage was more procedural than substantive).

The possibility of any other state advancing such bans is diminishing; already many proposals have failed to meet internal legislative deadlines to advance out of their committees or chambers of origin (so-called “crossover” days).

Full roster of 39 40 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.

Update 3/13/12 10:40 a.m.: Minnesota SB 2281 added
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: South Dakota governor signs, dead in Florida, failing to advance in any other states

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: On South Dakota governor’s desk; advancing in legislative committees in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, New Hampshire

March 2nd, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.

Like the two weeks before it, these last two weeks since my last update in this area have been particularly busy. Of note:

  • Three new bills introduced: Georgia SR 926 (Constitutional Amendment), Iowa SB 2158 (the Senate version of HB 575 introduced last year and still pending), and Mississippi HB 698. The Mississippi bill is interesting; despite the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decision in January 2012 that overturned a similar Oklahoma initiative because it cited sharia by name, HB 698 specifically cites to sharia as well in its definition of “foreign law” the use of which is prohibited in the state’s courts by the bill.
  • South Dakota’s heavily modified version (“No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.”) was approved by both chambers and is now on the desk of the state’s Governor.
  • Bans in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, and New Hampshire met with committee approval, while Florida HB 1209 was approved by the full House yesterday (March 1).

Full roster of 39 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: On South Dakota governor’s desk; advancing in legislative committees in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, New Hampshire

Another day, another legislative plan to prosecute judges for their decisions, this time in Mississippi

February 24th, 2012

In yesterday’s Gavel to Gavel e-newsletter (free subscription here) I noted that Iowa’s Senate was considering a bill to make it a Class D felony for judges in the state to use or cite international law. Today’s effort at prosecuting judges for their opinions comes from Mississippi.

HCR 75 is a constitutional amendment made up of three parts.

The first grants any qualified elector with at least an Associate’s degree the right to submit a bill draft request to the legislature, which must then draft the bill and consider it.

The second provides any law enforcement officer who commits misconduct, racial misconduct, unnecessary physical abuse or other improper conduct against another shall, is to face a $5,000 fine and be suspended for 30 days.

The third is focused on judges and prosecutors. Under it, any judge who

  • deprives a person of his constitutional or civil rights,
  • abuses or exceeds the authority of his office,
  • does not maintain proper decorum in the court room, or
  • engages in unethical conduct

is to be criminally prosecuted. Conviction of a first offense means a $5,000 fine and a law license suspension for 90 days. Second or subsequent convictions have no fine provision, but would result in suspension of the judge’s law license for 1 year.

Given that judges/justices of the state’s courts (except justices of the peace and municipal courts serving a population below 10,000)  must be attorneys, this would presumably prohibit them from serving as a judge during the duration of the suspension.

HCR 75 is currently pending before the House Constitution Committee and has been cross-referred to the House Judiciary B Committee.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Introduced in Mississippi and Kentucky, advancing in Florida & South Dakota, dying in Virginia

February 13th, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.

The two weeks since my last update in this area have been particularly busy. Of note:

  • Mississippi’s introduction of HB 2 and Kentucky’s HB 386 brings to 22 (versus 24 states in 2011) the number of states to have a bill banning the use of international law/sharia by state courts in 2012
  • South Dakota has heavily modified their bills and achieved committee approval with a single sentence statute: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.”
  • Virginia’s bans, while initially appearing to be advancing, were deferred into the 2013 legislative session.

Full roster of 36 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Pennsylvania bill introduced

November 28th, 2011

Welcome New York Times readers!

Welcome Post-Gazette readers!

Since the last update of this list in October, one piece of legislation has been introduced.  Pennsylvania’s HB 2029 bans court references to any “foreign legal code or system” if doing so would impair constitutional rights.

Full roster of 2010 bills are available. 2011 and 2012 bills after the jump. » Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Pennsylvania bill introduced

Why Senate confirmation for state judicial nominees? Why not House? Or joint?

October 11th, 2011

Numerous state legislatures in 2011 that have a version of merit selection (Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma) or have considered adopting merit selection (Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) have put in provisions for Senate confirmation. Additionally, Rhode Island (HB 5675) considered removing the state senate’s existing confirmation power with respect to a trial court (Superior Court) and transferring the power to the house.

But the question arises: why Senate confirmation? There’s the case for reference to the U.S. Senate and its role in federal judicial confirmations. And this was consistent when a) state senators were elected by counties to represent the county as a whole (as in New Jersey) or clusters of counties (as in New York) and b) trial judges (and occasionally appellate judges) were picked by districts made up of clusters of counties.

Thanks to one person/one vote decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court over the years, the practice of Senate districts following county lines is over. The practice of appellate judges being chosen based on geography is also on the decline with only 10 states continuing to use the practice for courts of last resort and 17 of 40 states with intermediate appellate courts using district based selection (although Montana may buck the trend in 2012, Oregon voters rejected the idea 2-1 in 2006).

Moreover, as I noted in March, such proposals have fared much better in state senates than in state houses, and history bears this out. In short, when the power to confirm has been handed solely to the state senate, it has had mixed support in the state’s house. The only way it happens, normally, is when there is a litany of other issues in play.

When does Senate confirmation of appellate nominees come into a constitution?

  • Conventions changing entire constitution: Delaware, Hawaii, and New Jersey
  • Constitutional amendment changing most/entire Judiciary Article: Maryland (1970 attempt) and Utah
  • Constitutional amendment changing judicial selection only: Maryland (1976), New York
  • Constitutional amendment changing most/entire Executive Branch Article: Maine, Vermont

In the case of Maryland (1976) and New York (1977) the amendments to have Senate confirmation met with lower House approval as part of a package of bills related to the courts.

This institutional inertia may explain some 2011 activity. Consider the following:

  • The original Florida House proposal HJR 7111, introduced March 22, 2011 included nothing about Senate confirmation of justices of the planned modified supreme court with civil and criminal panels. The only mention of the Senate was a provision stripping the power of the court(s) to name their chief justice and giving it to the Governor with Senate confirmation. Six days later, SJR 1664 requiring Senate confirmation for the Supreme Court was passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. On April 5, the Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee gave its approval of SJR 1664. By April 8, SCR 1046) and Oklahoma Senate (SB 621) did not fare as well. The Arizona bill went nowhere. The Oklahoma bill moved through the Senate and was not even brought up for a House committee hearing.

Roles of legislatures in appellate judicial selection

Both chambers

Connecticut: since the 1818 Constitution. An 1880 amendment (Article XXVI) allowed for the Governor to nominate, but still required confirmation by both chambers. A 1986 amendment added merit selection, permitting the Governor to nominate only from those names submitted by the Judicial Selection Commission.

Rhode Island: since the 1842 Constitution and kept as part of the 1986 constitution. A 1994 amendment added merit selection, permitting the Governor to nominate only from those names submitted by an independent non-partisan judicial nominating commission.

South Carolina: since the 1776 Constitution and kept as a part of the 1778, 1790, 1861, 1865 and 1868 constitutions, plus a 1973 revision to the judiciary article. A 1997 constitutional amendment added merit selection allowing the legislature to elect only from those names submitted by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission.

Virginia: since the 1776 Constitution and kept as part of the 1850, 1861, 1864, 1870, and 1902 constitutions.

Senate only

Delaware: since the 1897 Constitution. The 1776 Constitution specified a joint ballot of both chambers of the general assembly and the “president” (i.e. governor) of the state. The 1792 and 1831 Constitutions placed the power of appointment solely in the hands of the Governor.

Hawaii: since the 1949 Constitution.

Maryland: since a 1976 constitutional amendment. The 1776 Constitution gave appointment to the Governor with the Council “for the time being” and put it solely in the hands of the Governor via an 1837 amendment. Maryland’s 1864 Constitution provided for direct election of the judges of the top court (Court of Appeals), but provided the Governor with Senate confirmation would select the chief judge. The 1867 Constitution made 7 of the 8 chief judges of the state’s judicial circuits the state’s top court and provided the Governor with the confirmation of the Senate would select the chief judge of the Court of Appeals. This practice continued until a 1943 constitutional amendment separated the roles of chief circuit judge from judge of the Court of Appeals but still required direct election. A 1960 amendment reaffirmed direct election, while changing the geographic boundaries.

It should be noted that the Maryland proposal was initially rejected in 1970 (1970 version) and included most courts in the state (judges of the Court of Appeals, intermediate courts of appeal, Circuit Courts, and the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City), increased terms of office to 15 years, and made revisions to the power of the Commission on Judicial Disabilities which had just been created in 1966. The successful 1976 version focused exclusively on merit selection with Senate confirmation for appellate courts only.

New Jersey: since the 1844 Constitution. The 1776 Constitution made the Governor and Council the state’s top court (Court of Appeals). The current 1947 Constitution replicated the Governor-appoints-Senate confirms system of the 1844 Constitution, but with a significant change. Rather than being re-confirmed every 7 years, the justices would face only 2 Senate confirmations: one for their initial appointment and a second after 7 years. If reconfirmed a second time, they would remain in office until age 70.

New York Court of Appeals (state’s court of last resort): sporadically since the 1777 Constitution. Under the 1777 Constitution, a Council on Appointments made up of 4 Senators chosen by the Assembly, plus the Governor (to break ties) was used. The 1821 Constitution changed this to a Governor-appoints-Senate-confirms system. The 1846 Constitution created a bifurcated election system: 4 of the 8 judges would be elected by the statewide, the other 4 would be locally elected judges of the general jurisdiction court (confusingly called the “supreme court”) “having the shortest time to serve.” A new constitution was voted on, section by section, in 1869; the judicial article was the only one approved. That new article provided for statewide election. The 1894 Constitution and 1938 Constitution continued the statewide election system. A 1977 amendment that revamped much of the Judiciary Article created the present merit-selection-Senate-confirmation system.

10/24/11 update: Selection to the state’s primary intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division, has no role for the legislature. The Governor alone elevates from the judges elected locally in partisan elections to the general jurisdiction court (confusingly called the “Supreme Court”).

Utah: since a 1984 constitutional amendment. The original 1895 constitution provided for statewide election. The 1984 amendment overhauling the entire Judiciary Article provided for the present merit-selection-Senate-confirmation system. A subsequent 1992 amendment increased the time for the Senate to consider nominations.

Vermont: since a 1971 constitutional amendment. The 1793 Constitution provide for joint election by the unicameral House and Executive Council, a practice that was continued when the Council was made the Senate via a 1836 amendment. An 1890 effort to shift this to the Senate alone was rejected by the Senate itself but was incorporated into the 1971 revision of the state’s entire Judiciary Article.

Hybrid

Maine: since a 1975 constitutional amendment (L.D. 25). The 1820 Constitution in place when Maine was separated from Massachusetts and became a state kept the Massachusetts practice of supreme court selection method of governor-appoints-and-executive-council-confirms. The 1975 amendment abolishing the Council created the current procedure for confirmation: the Governor nominates and a Joint House/Senate legislative committee recommends confirmation or rejection. That recommendation is binding unless the Senate overrides with 2/3 vote.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: list of all bills since 2010, new 2011 Michigan bill, first 2012 bill prefiled

October 3rd, 2011

This post has been updated. Click here.

Since the last update of this list in August, two pieces of legislation have been introduced. Michigan’s SB 701 appears to be the Senate version of HB 4769, which has gone nowhere since its June introduction.

The other bill is Alabama SB 33 of 2012, a prefiled bill for the next session. SB 33 of 2012 is a constitutional amendment that looks more like HB 607 / SB 61 than HB 597 / SB 62 in that it does not specifically mention “sharia”.

It should be noted that at least some 2011 bills will make a return in 2012; roughly half of states allow bills to be “carried over” from one session to the next. Definitive answers as to which bills will return will be available as the legislatures come back into session in January.

Full roster of bills going back to 2010 after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: list of all bills since 2010, new 2011 Michigan bill, first 2012 bill prefiled

2011 Southern indigent defense legislation

September 14th, 2011

Law

Alabama HB 601 / SB 440 Repeals all existing laws with respect to indigent defense. Redefines “indigent defendant.” Provides for the unified administration of indigent defense services by the state. Ends practice of providing for indigent defense through the local presiding circuit judge, commission, or governing body administering the system. Creates statewide Office of Indigent Defense Services within the Finance Department and indigent defense advisory boards in each judicial circuit.

Arkansas HB 1004 Prohibits payment of attorney’s fees of privately retained attorneys for indigent persons.

Arkansas HB 2207 Provides funding for public defenders may come from a county’s administration of justice, general, public defender, indigent defense, or public defender investigator fund(s), or any other fund authorized by law for that purpose. Requires expenditures comply with an itemized, line-item budget.

Louisiana HB 178 Authorizes Dept. of Children and Family Services to transfer funds appropriated pursuant to existing law to unspecified entities for representation of children and indigent parents in child protection proceedings. Removes require that funds go only to those entities specified in existing law.

Mississippi HB 1302 / SB 2563 Consolidates Office of Capital Defense Counsel, Office of Indigent Appeals and Division of Public Defender Training into Office of State Public Defender. Repeals provision that Circuit Court may appoint local counsel in capital cases at the expense of the Capital Defense Counsel Special Fund.

Mississippi HB 506 Permits all public defenders to carry firearms in courthouses. (See also HB 881)

Mississippi HB 332 / SB 2697 Extends Public Defender Task Force until 2014.

Texas HB 1754 / SB 170 Creates within judicial branch the Texas Indigent Defense Commission. Transfers all powers and duties of Task Force on Indigent Defense  to Commission and abolishes Task Force. Designates Commission a permanent standing committee of the Texas Judicial Council and administratively attached to the Office of Court Administration, but provides commission is to prepare, approve, and submit a Legislative Appropriations Request and maintain a budget structure separate from that of OCA. Establishes membership of governing board of the Commission. Sets sunset date for commission as September 2023. Requires certain indigent defense information to be submitted by November 1st of each odd numbered year. Requires each law school receiving innocence project funding to submit annual reports regarding exonerations in criminal cases. Amends the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the creation of public defender’s offices. Defines and authorizes local jurisdictions to establish managed assigned counsel programs as strictly a local option that would require both the judges and county commissioners court assent to implement. Repeals the “Indigent Representation Fund”, the court costs for which serve as a revenue stream to the Fair Defense Account, which serves the same purpose.

Texas HB 3323 / SB 1308 Allows for the review of attorneys who are no longer eligible to represent indigent defendants in capital cases due to a single finding of ineffective counsel. Provides determination will be made by the Regional Selection Committee, which includes an administrative law judge, a district judge, a representative from the local bar association, and a board-certified criminal attorney.

Adopted Resolution

Texas HCR 22 (Special Session) Commends the members of the Texas Supreme Court for their actions in support of legal aid services and honors them for their work in promoting access to justice for the state’s most vulnerable citizens.

Active/Carried over into 2012

Oklahoma SB 868 Specifies Indigent Defense System is only for indigents who are in custody. Provides a court may appoint legal representation for an indigent who is not in custody, in which case costs for such representation shall be paid from the local court fund.

Oklahoma HB 2175 Restricts use of the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System to defendants who are in custody. Provides a definition for “unable to employ counsel”.

Tennessee HB 1225 / SB 1279 Provides that if an attorney, post-conviction defender or district public defender in a criminal case is found to have provided ineffective assistance of counsel, that attorney cannot receive any further state funds for legal services until the attorney obtains continuing education, counseling or training that addresses the reason for the attorney being ineffective.

Tennessee HB 1623 / SB 1574 Removes the requirement that the Executive Director of the District Public Defenders Conference (DPDC) administer the accounts of the judicial branch of government relating to the DPDC; prepare, approve, and submit budget estimates and appropriations necessary for the maintenance and operation of the offices of district public defenders; approve all requisitions for the payment of public moneys appropriated for the maintenance and operation of the judicial branch of government; audit claims, and prepare vouchers for payment; and provide the district public defenders with minimum law libraries.

Approved by one chamber

Louisiana SB 270 Provides 10% of revenue generated from abandoned cars sold by court as result of littering conviction go toward indigent defender board. Approved by full Senate and House Natural Resources and Environment committee. Indefinitely postponed on House floor.

Mississippi SB 2945 Specifies public defender is authorized to assign the duties of all employees of the office without regard to the source of funding for those employees. Approved by full Senate, died in House Judiciary B committee.

Texas SB 1682 Authorizes the creation of a managed assigned counsel program by a locality with written approval of a judge of the juvenile court of a county or county court, statutory county court, or district court trying criminal cases. Approved by full Senate and House Criminal Jurisprudence committee. Died on House floor.

Died in committee

Arkansas HB 2146 Defines crime of “illegal disbursement of funds by a judge”. Makes illegal instances where judge makes payments for services rendered to a public defender, assistant public defender, prosecuting attorney, or deputy prosecuting attorney resulting from the exercise of that person’s official duties.

Arkansas SB 941 Provides public defenders must provide itemized bill with a detailed explanation of services rendered, time spent, and expenses incurred. Renames converts certificates of indigency into affidavits to be created by public defender commission. Increases from $100 to $250 maximum user fee payable to commission.

Arkansas SB 974 Designates public defender commission a criminal justice agency for purposes of access to the Arkansas Crime Information Center.

Mississippi HB 181 Sets hourly payment for indigent defense counsel as 80% of the hourly rate allowed in the Mississippi’s federal courts. Provides judge presiding in case may adjust the total requested payment to counsel in a case if the court finds that the number of hours claimed by counsel in that case is not reasonable.

Mississippi HB 153 Creates District Public Defender Pilot project.

Mississippi HB 978 Provides public defender salaries are to be same as county prosecutors.

Mississippi SB 2971 Authorizes loan forgiveness programs for education loans to encourage law students and other attorneys to choose careers in the area of public interest, including specifically public defenders and civil legal aid attorneys.

Texas HB 1475 Provides for longevity pay for assistant public defenders.

Texas HB 1392 Creates special $95 fee for sale of property at a foreclosure sale to pay for civil legal services to the indigent.

Texas HB 2174 / SB 726 Establishes judicial access and improvement account to provide funding for basic civil legal services, indigent defense, and judicial technical support through certain county service fees and court costs imposed to fund the account. (See also Special Session HB 34 / SB 23)

Texas HB 1918 / SB 1028 Requires a district court judge to appoint one attorney, rather than two, when a capital felony case is filed. Provides in cases where prosecutors do not seek the death penalty a second attorney will not be required to be appointed.

State-by-State 2011 Legislative Year in Review: Mississippi

August 23rd, 2011

New laws, plus two resolutions, affecting the courts enacted or adopted by the Mississippi legislature in 2011 include the following:

HB 193 Provides governing authorities of any municipality or board of supervisors for a county in the state may donate funds from county treasury to any chapter of Court Appointed Special Advocates, up to a specified maximum.

HB 224 Provides court having jurisdiction over a person for a matter before the court shall have the final determination about whether the person may participate in drug court.

HB 490 Exempts from new competency examination all sitting justice court judges.

HB 506 Allows all prosecutors, public defenders, and others holding a firearms license and having taking a specified court to carry a firearm into any courthouse except in courtrooms during a judicial proceeding.

HB 773 Establishes procedure where a single candidate has qualified for election to judicial office but dies, resigns, or is otherwise disqualified prior to the general election.

HB 852 Permits U.S. District Judge or Magistrate Judge for Northern or Southern District of Mississippi to admit law students to limited practice in any state or federal court in Mississippi.

HB 881 Allows all prosecutors, public defenders, and others holding a firearms license and having taking a specified court to carry a firearm into any courthouse except in courtrooms during a judicial proceeding. (Other provisions in bill make it similar but not identical to HB 506).

SB 2554 Revises existing law requiring searchable website for all state expenditures. Redefines “agency” as “all elective offices in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of state government” but specifically not “counties or municipalities.”

HR 81 Commends Mississippi Drug Court Program for saving lives and saving money for Mississippi taxpayers.

HR 86 Recognizes and commends drug court graduates upon successful completion of the program.

2011 Southern bail/pretrial release legislation

August 17th, 2011

Law

Alabama HB 56 Requires determination if defendant is unlawfully present in U.S. prior to bail determination and, if determined not lawfully present, denial of bail. (see also SB 256).

Kentucky HB 463 / SB 161 Establishes pretrial release and considerations for persons based on risk of flight and danger before trial and require credit toward bail based on time spent in jail before trial. Requires the Supreme Court to create guidelines for judges to use when considering pretrial release and monitored conditional release. Directs the courts to develop guidelines for pretrial release decision making, and directs judges to use these guidelines in making those decisions. Requires those on pretrial release to use GPS monitoring. Provides a maximum bail is not to exceed the amount of fine and court costs for specified crimes. Requires Department of Corrections to provide training on evidence-based practices to employees of pretrial services.

Louisiana HB 216 Provides failure to to make probable cause determination within 48 hours of arrest, resulting in release, does not preclude the defendant’s rearrest and resetting of bond for the same offense or offenses upon the issuance of an arrest warrant based upon a finding of probable cause by a magistrate.

Mississippi SB 2239 Clarifies that domestic violence bail bond fee is to be refunded to defendant who is not finally convicted.

Oklahoma HB 1347 Creates Wildlife Bail Procedure Act, setting procedures for persons arrested for violation of any section of the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Code.

Tennessee HB 703 / SB 861 Directs that a defendant released on a pre-trial bond continue on release pending the trial under the same terms and conditions unless the court determines other terms and conditions or termination of the bond is necessary. Authorizes a court to revoke a defendant’s bond and order defendant held without bail pending trial if the defendant violates a release condition; is charged with an offense committed during release; or engages in conduct that obstructs the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial or other proceedings.

Tennessee HB 718 / SB 1269 Provides, in certain DUI-related cases,defendant may not be released with another bail “until the judge or judicial commissioner sets conditions on the bond to attempt to eliminate the danger posed by the defendant” instead of “unless the court first determines the defendant is no longer a danger to the community.”

Tennessee HB 962 / SB 802 Directs issuance of a capias warrant for a criminal defendant who forfeits bond. If circumstances require, authorizes use of a duplicate copy of the capias until a certified copy of the capias can be obtained from the clerk’s office.

Texas HB 1070 / SB 972 Allows a county jailer to take a defendant’s bail bond.

Texas HB 1658 Specifies that a defendant may be refunded a bail bond on order of the court and only after the defendant complies with the conditions of the bond.

Texas HB 1822 Specifically authorizes a partial release of security when the amount of security remaining would meet certain requirements.

Texas HB 1823 Harmonizes provisions related to bail bond business in Code of Criminal Procedure with related provisions under the Occupations Code.

Texas HB 3077 / SB 877 Requires a sheriff, prosecuting attorney, or clerk of the court to verify an affidavit from a surety stating the accused is in custody of another governmental entity before discharging the surety’s liability on a bail bond. Requires a sheriff to place a detainer on the accused and notify both appropriate officials in the jurisdiction in which the accused is incarcerated and the court or magistrate for which prosecution is pending. Requires magistrate then direct the court to issue a capias for the arrest of the accused if deemed necessary.

Introduced with committee and/or floor approval

Tennessee HB 1312 / SB 1862 Removes the requirement that a court determine whether a defendant is a danger to the community prior to releasing the defendant on bail for being charged with vehicular assault, vehicular homicide or driving under the influence.

Tennessee HB 1380 / SB 780 Specifies that when determining the amount of bail, if it is determined that the defendant is unlawfully present in the United States, then there would be a presumption that the defendant is a flight risk.

Texas HB 770 Enhances the penalty for bail jumping and failure to appear as a condition of being released from custody from a Class A misdemeanor to a felony of the first degree if the offense for which the actor’s appearance was required is an offense of murder or capital murder.

Texas HB 875 Requires the sheriff or other officer to notify the judge or magistrate authorized to grant or deny the defendant’s release on bail if the sheriff or officer determines that the defendant was not lawfully admitted to the United States or, although lawfully admitted, the defendant’s lawful status has expired. Requires the Commission on Jail Standards to prepare and issue guidelines and procedures to ensure compliance with these provisions. Establishes a rebuttable presumption at any proceeding before the judge or magistrate concerning the defendant’s release on bail that the defendant presents a risk of flight from prosecution if a sheriff or other officer notifies a judge or magistrate that a defendant was not lawfully admitted to the United States or that, although lawfully admitted, the defendant’s lawful status has expired.

Texas HB 1784 Allows a court to refund any cash funds to a defendant after the defendant complies with the bond conditions. Allows a defendant, as part of a plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement, to request funds to be withheld for outstanding fines, court costs, or amounts of restitution, but not to repay attorney’s fees.

Texas HJR 86 (Constitutional Amendment) Denies bail to certain persons who are unlawfully present in the United States and are taken into custody for committing a felony.

Texas HJR 98 (Constitutional Amendment) Denies bail to certain persons charged with a violent or sexual offense after having been previously convicted of a violent or sexual offense.

Texas SB 878 Prohibits a court or a magistrate from authorizing a defendant to deposit cash less than the full amount of bail set by the court or magistrate, nor require money or other security as a condition of bond for release.

Introduced with committee rejection

Alabama HB 481 / SB 276 Requires as condition for bail after an arrest for a second or subsequent DUI violation that a defendant have an ignition interlock device installed.

Alabama SB 291 Requires as condition for bail after an arrest for DUI violation that a defendant have an ignition interlock device installed.

Tennessee HB 1501 / SB 1987 Makes a person who is charged with sexual exploitation of a minor ineligible for suspension of prosecution and pretrial diversion.

Texas HB 1686 Require a judge or magistrate in whose court a criminal action is pending to discharge a surety’s liability on a bail bond under the following conditions: the surety files with the judge or magistrate an affidavit stating that more than five years have elapsed since the date on which the surety posted the bond, that the surety no longer wishes to be a surety on the bond, and that the surety will give the prosecuting attorney notice of the affidavit; and the surety gives such notice of the affidavit to the prosecuting attorney. Requires a judge or magistrate who discharges a surety’s liability in that manner, if an indictment or information remains pending against the defendant, to issue a capias for the defendant.

Introduced with other or no activity

Alabama HB 481 Requires as condition for bail after an arrest for a second or subsequent DUI violation that a defendant have an ignition interlock device installed.

Arkansas HB 1245 Modifies existing law regarding issuance of warrants for failure to appear for those held on bond. Provides a judgment entered when the defendant has been surrendered, apprehended, or arrested within one hundred twenty (120) days of receipt of written notification to the surety of the defendant’s failure to appear is void.

Arkansas HB 1246 Permits financing of bail bonds.

Arkansas HB 2169 “Affirmatively clarifies” financing of bail bonds is prohibited.

Mississippi HB 54 Establishes rebuttable presumption defendant presents a risk of flight if not lawfully admitted to the United States.

Mississippi HB 1266 Imposes a 1% increase on fee charged for bail bonds to be deposited in the State Treasury for Department of Mental Health.

Mississippi HCR 14 Prohibits issuance of bail for sex offenses.

Mississippi SB 2474 Clarifies procedures by which ail is set by municipal court. Provides bail set is payable to municipality.

Mississippi SB 2505 In cases of domestic violence, requires Protective Order Registry be checked before granting bail on another charge.

Oklahoma SB 705 Changes numerous laws with respect to personal recognizance, forfeiture of bail, release on personal recognizance, posting bail, and suspension of driving privilege. Modifies certain arraignment requirements. Removes requirement for release on personal recognizance under specified circumstances.

Tennessee HB 1578 / SB 770 Specifies that when determining the amount of bail, if it is determined that the defendant is unlawfully present in the United States, then there would be a presumption that the defendant is a flight risk.

Texas HB 168 Requires that a bail bond state an expiration date of not later than the third anniversary of the date the principal signed the bond.

Texas HB 532 Establishes a rebuttable presumption at any proceeding before the judge or magistrate concerning the defendant’s release on bail that the defendant presents a risk of flight from prosecution if a sheriff or other officer notifies a judge or magistrate that a defendant was not lawfully admitted to the United States or that, although lawfully admitted, the defendant’s lawful status has expired.

Texas HB 2467 Authorizes a surety to relieve the surety of the surety’s undertaking by delivering an affidavit to the prosecuting attorney and the county court clerk stating that the accused is incarcerated, unless the accused is not a United States citizen and is unlawfully present in the United States.

Texas SB 881 Allows a defendant and a defendant’s sureties to be exonerated from liability upon forfeiture if before the final judgment, there was a death of the principal or the principal was deported from the United States.

Texas SB 909 Relating to the discharge of a surety’s liability on a bail bond in a criminal case.