professionals managing texas courts vol. 46 no. 1 jan 2018 january .pdf · harris county dwi court...

Nacogdoches County CourthouseNacogdoches, Nacogdoches County, Texas

TEXAS ASSOCIATION FOR COURT ADMINISTRATION

Professionals Managing Texas CourtsVol. 46 No. 1Jan 2018

www.mytaca.org Celebrating 42 years

T E X A S A S S O C I A T I O N F O R C O U R T A D M I N I S T R A T I O N2

CONTENTS

TACA MEMBERSHIP OPTIONSRegular Membership Any person whose primary duty is to work in the administration of the courts and who is a direct employee of the judiciary, including, but not limited to court coordinators, court managers, court administrators, assistant court coordinators, court bailiffs and court secretaries, shall be entitled to regular membership. Regular members in good standing shall be certified to vote, hold office and serve on committees.

Associate Membership A person engaged in a related field may become an associate member. An associate member may serve on committees, but may not vote or hold office in the association.

Judicial Membership TACA encourages members of the judiciary to become members of the association. A judicial member may serve on committees, but may not vote or hold office in the association.

Sustaining Membership A person, persons, firm or corporation interested in furthering the purpose of this organization is eligible to become a sustaining member. Sustaining members shall not hold office, and shall not serve on committees. Minimum contribution recommended $200.00.

Please visit the TACA website at www.mytaca.org for more information.

From The Chair...............................................................................................................................................................................................................32017 - 2018 Judicial Advisory Board .........................................................................................................................................................................4TACA Board of Directors .......................................................................................................................................................................................5Meet The Board ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................6Calendar at a Glance ....................................................................................................................................................................................................72017 - 2018 Publications Committee.................................................................................................................................................................................................8Publication Chair............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9Promoting Jury Appreciation Week...................................................................................................................................................................................................102017 TACA Conference Overview ......................................................................................................................................................................12Membership Committee Report .............................................................................................................................................................................13Special Recognition Awards......................................................................................................................................................................................14Court Administration.................................................................................................................................................................................................152017 Service Awards...................................................................................................................................................................................................172017 - 2018 Membership Committee ....................................................................................................................................................................18TACA Night Out & New Member Celebration...................................................................................................................................................192017 TACA New Member Reception....................................................................................................................................................................20Education Committee Report..................................................................................................................................................................................212017 - 2018 Education Committee ..........................................................................................................................................................................21Vendor Showcase........................................................................................................................................................................................................24Managing High-Profile Cases...................................................................................................................................................................................25Scholarship Committee Report.............................................................................................................................................................................27Thank You Justice Partners......................................................................................................................................................................................28 2017 - 2018 Scholarship Committee......................................................................................................................................................................29Meet Tammy Brooks..................................................................................................................................................................................................31Nominations Committe Report................................................................................................................................................................................322017 - 2018 Nominations Committe ....................................................................................................................................................................32Statutory Charges Regarding Mentally Ill Defendants.......................................................................................................................................33Legislative Update 85th R.S...................................................................................................................................................................................42New Secretariat Elizabeth Klawinsky.....................................................................................................................................................................45TACA Membership Application ...............................................................................................................................................................................46 42nd TACA Annual Education Conference Details............................................................................................................................................47


Hey everybody!

It’s that time again, when a new year starts and we look back at the past year and the TACA chair is supposed to give words of thanks for all the hard work given throughout the last year, but here’s the thing…I hope I (and the rest of the Board) took the time throughout the year to thank each and every one of you during the course of your service, hard work, act of… helpfulness, kindness, thoughtfulness, and even just being there to lend an ear. If I missed telling you in person, I am sincerely sorry, and hope you know that I (and the Board) appreciated all the assistance given to us and we couldn’t have done it without your help!

“It is impossible to be negative while we are giving thanks.” – Donald Curtis

Now…onto next year…wow!!! Where to go from here? The question should be…Where not to? The Board’s vision and mine for TACA is to try to get TACA back to where it was intended to be…a member driven organization. To use the membership to its fullest as much as possible. To take your evaluations and suggestions and incorporate them as much as possible into how we operate and how we plan our annual conference. The only way this can be done is by you, the members, serving on committees, reaching out to the Board or the Committee Chairs and making your wishes known. You can find all of our information at www.mytaca.org. The Board and I look forward to hearing from you good or bad, because we need to know what is working and what isn’t; we can’t fix it if we don’t know it’s broken. I am so excited to see where TACA can go if we don’t limit ourselves!

“We are all infinitely bigger than the roles we place ourselves in!” – Anonymous

Wendi S. Pearson

Chair, TACA Board of Directors

FROM THE CHAIR


The Journal, the official publication of the Texas Association of Court Administration, is published in January, April and August each year. The journal is authorized to publish advertisements and the following rate schedule has been established:

Advertisements, along with a check made payable to the “Texas Association for Court Administration” in the correct amount should be sent to the following:

Advertising PolicyTexas Association for Court Administration

Quarter Page

Half Page

Full Page

$200 per issue

$300 per issue

$500 per issue

$450 for 3 issues

$750 for 3 issues

$1200 for 3 issues

Texas Association for Court Administration Attn: Elizabeth Klawinsky

Sam Houston State UniversityGeorge J. Beto Criminal Justice Center

Huntsville, Texas 77341-2296Phone: (936) 294-1639Fax: (936) 294-1671

Email: [email protected]

For additional information about advertising,please contact the following:

Dorlisa PattonPublications Liaison

Office: 936-560-7744Email: [email protected]

Copy deadlines for advertisers areMarch 4th, July 2nd and Dec 10th

2017 - 2018 JUDICIAL ADVISORY BOARD

HON. DEAN RUCKERRetired Judge, 7th Administrative Region318th District Court200 West Wall, Suite 200Midland, Texas 79701-4557

HON. BARBARA WALTHERJudge, 51st District Court112 West BeauregardSan Angelo, Texas 76903

HON. LAURA WEISERJudicial Resource LiaisonTexas Center for the Judiciary1210 San Antonio, Ste. 800Austin, Texas 78701

JUSTICE DEBRA H. LERMANNSupreme Court Building201 W. 14th Room 104Austin, Texas 78701

HON. MARK ATKINSONExecutive DirectorTexas Center for the Judiciary1210 San Antonio, Ste. 800Austin, Texas 78701

HON. CATHY COCHRANJudge, Court of Criminal AppealsP.O. Box 12308Austin, Texas 78711

HON. DAVID D. GARCIAJudge, County Criminal Court #31450 E. McKinney, Ste. #4416Denton, Texas 76209

CHIEF JUSTICE BRIAN QUINN7th Court of Appeals501 S. Fillmore, Ste. 2-AAmarillo, Texas 79101


2017 - 2018 TACA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Wendi S. Pearson – ChairCourt AdministratorTaylor County350th District Court300 Oak Street, Suite 404Abilene,Texas 79602Office: 325-674-1242Email: [email protected]

Dean Stanzione – Past ChairDirector of Court AdministrationLubbock CountyP.O. Box 105036Lubbock,Texas 79408Office: 806-775-1987Email: [email protected]

Dorlisa Patton - Publication LiaisonCourt AdministratorNacogdoches CountyNacogdoches County Court at Law101 W. MainNacogdoches,Texas 75964Office: 936-560-7744Email: [email protected]

Karen Ellis-Treasurer/SecretaryHarris County Criminal Courts at Law1201 Franklin, 7th FloorHouston,Texas 77002Office: 713-755-0977Fax: 713-650-8550Email: [email protected]

Gracie Garcia - Membership LiaisonCourt AdministratorWebb County111th District Court1110 Victoria Street, Suite 301Laredo,Texas 78040Office: 956-523-4722Email: [email protected]

Laura Conte - Scholarship LiaisonCourt CoordinatorCounty Criminal Court at Law #151115 Congress, 3rd FloorHouston, Texas 77002Courtroom: 832-927-3450Email: [email protected]

Karen Warr - Education LiaisonCourt ManagerShelby County123rd & 237rd District Courts200 San Augustine, Suite 3Center, Texas 75935Office: (936) 598-9928Email: [email protected]

Ed Wells – Professional DevelopmentChairCourt ManagerCriminal Court at Law1201 Franklin, 7th FloorHouston, Texas 77002Office: 713-755-5394Fax: 713-650-8550Email: [email protected]


MEET THE BOARD2017 - 2018 TACA Board

From left to right:

TACA Chair – Wendi Pearson

Membership Liaison – Gracie Garcia

Publications Liaison – Dorlisa Patton

Scholarship Liaison – Laura Conte (Newly Elected Board Member)

Education Liaison – Karen Warr (Newly Elected Board Member)


2018 CALENDAR AT A GLANCE

April 16-17 2018 Judicial Spring Conference A Regions: 2,5,6,7,9,11 Galveston Island Convention Center Galveston, Texas

May 1 Scholarship Applications Deadline

May 10-11 2018 Judicial Spring Conference B Regions: 1,3,4,8,10 Galveston Island Convention Center Galveston, Texas

June 1 Conference Registration Opens Via: www.mytaca.org

June 10-15 Court Management Program (CMP) Embassy Suites, San Marcos, Texas Class of 2017-2018 *Managing Court Financial Resources *Managing Human Resources

June 11-15 Professional Development Program (PDP) Embassy Suites, San Marcos, Texas

June 30 Member of the Year Application Submission Deadline

July 1 Declaration of Candidacy Deadline

July 15 T-Shirt Contest Design Submission Deadline

August 15 Barrow Award Nomination Deadline

September 4-7 Annual Judicial Education Conference Marriott Marquis, Houston, Texas

October 2-5 42nd Annual Education Conference Omni San Antonio at the Colonnade

December 9-13 2018 College for New Judges Sheraton Austin at the Capitol, Austin, Texas

December 2018 Action Plan & Curriculum Meeting

**A complete list of Educational Conferences provided through The Texas Centerfor the Judiciary can be found on their website at: www.yourhonor.com.


2017 - 2018 PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Board Liaison: Dorlisa Patton

Dorlisa Patton (Liaison)Court AdministratorNacogdoches CountyCounty Court at Law101 W. Main, Suite 240Nacogdoches, Texas [email protected]

Jerome ColemanCourt AdministratorDenton CountyProbate Court1450 E. McKinney, #2412Denton, Texas 76209(940) [email protected]

Rachel CrislerAssoc. District Judge/Court CoordinatorFort Bend County268th/434th District Courts1422 Eugene Heimann CircleRichmond, Texas 77469(281) [email protected]

Gracie GarciaCourt AdministratorLaredo County111th District Court1110 Victoria St., Suite 301Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Raymie HairellCourt CoordinatorHarris CountyHarris County DWI Court1201 Franklin, 7th FloorHouston, Texas 77002(713) [email protected]

Leslie Hawsey (Chair)Court AdministratorHarrison County71st Judicial District200 W. Houston.#219 Marshall, Texas 75671(903) [email protected]

Laura ConteCourt CoordinatorHarris CountyCounty Criminal Court at Law #151201 Franklin, 7th FloorHouston, Texas 77002(713) [email protected]

Perla DiazCourt AdministratorCameron CountyCounty Court at Law No. 2974 E. HarrisonBrownsville, Texas [email protected]

Ben GiannantonioApplied Technology SpecialistHarris CountyCounty Criminal Courts Office ofCourt Management1201 Franklin, 7th Floor Houston, Texas [email protected]

Tomas QuinteroRecords CoordinatorCameron CountyCourt at Law No. 2974 E. HarrisonBrownsville, Texas(956) [email protected]

Graciela SolisCriminal Court CoordinatorWebb County49th District Court1110 Victoria Street, Suite 304Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Emily WootenCourt CoordinatorPolk, San Jacinto, Trinity County411th Judicial District CourtLivingston, Texas 77351(936) [email protected]

Steve ThomasDistrict Court AdministratorComal, Hays, and Caldwell CountyDistrict Court150 N. Seguin #317New Braunfels, Texas 78130(830) [email protected]


Publication ChairLeslie Hawsey

COURT ADMINISTRATOR71ST DISTRICT COURT, HARRISON COUNTY

MARSHALL, TEXAS

Leslie Hawsey currently serves as the Court Administrator for the 71st District Court in Harrison County. Leslie has

been in the legal field since 2009 and has served in her current position for Judge Brad Morin since 2013. Leslie began

the Professional Development Program in 2013 and successfully finished each term of classes and graduating the Court

Management Program in 2016. In 2017, Leslie had the privilege of returning as a faculty member to first year PDP. This year

is her second year serving as the Publication Chair. Leslie has been a member of the Texas Court Administrator Association

(TACA) since 2013 and was previously a member of the Harrison County Law Enforcement (HCLEA) Association for 6

years where she served as Vice-President for 2 years.


Serving on a jury — few understand the fundamental importance of jury service more than trial judges and

appellate justices. But, how well do we communicate the significance or express our appreciation for those who

are answering the summons to serve?

As the Texas Uniform Jury Handbook states, “The United States Constitution and Texas Constitution guarantee

all people, regardless of race, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status, the right to trial by an impartial

jury. Justice ultimately depends to a large measure upon the quality of the jurors who serve in our courts.”2 When

members of the venire leave the courthouse, are we adequately helping them understand the importance and

solemnity of the judicial proceedings in which they participated?

In 2015, the Texas Legislature passed a bill creating “Jury Appreciation Week” to be celebrated the first week of

May. The bill’s author, Sen. Royce West, filed this statement of intent with the bill:

The fundamental importance of a trial by jury in our system of justice is demonstrated

by its enshrinement in the 6th and 7th Amendments to the Constitution of the United

States, along with Article 1 of the Constitution of Texas, our state bill of rights. The

work of juries is extremely important to the function of our democracy and without

it many of the liberties and freedoms we have as a society could be in jeopardy. To

serve on a jury is to serve one of the most important civic duties in both our state

and our nation. A juror’s work is an often tough, tiring, and thankless job. However,

without it, one of the foundations of our democracy, the judicial system that ensures

a safe and free society, would crumble. The first week in May is designated as Jury

Appreciation Week to express to those who have served or are currently serving on

juries of all kinds that their work is noted and appreciated.3

The statute states, “The first seven days in May are Jury Appreciation Week in recognition of the outstanding and

important contributions made by Texas citizens who serve as jurors.”4

The week corresponds with Law Day on May 1st, proclaimed by President Eisenhower, and later codified as a

special day of celebration by the people of the United States in appreciation of their liberties and ideals of equality

and justice under law and for the cultivation of the respect for law that is so vital to the democratic way of life.

Promoting Jury Appreciation WeekBy Judge Eddie Northcutt1


Jury Appreciation Week is dedicated to honoring those citizens who give of their time to participate in the

judicial system. And, although Jury Appreciation Week is designated to occur during the first week in May, it can

be scheduled during any week that jurors are empaneled, as not every county tries a case to a jury during the

month of May, much less the first week. The important thing is to make an effort to be intentional in expressing

appreciation for our citizens’ participation in the judicial branch of government.

This year was the second year of this effort to celebrate the jurors for their service. The primary effort thus far

has been two-fold: (1) communicating with county and district clerks about the week, providing them with toolkits

containing resources that will aid them in promoting the week, and (2) providing information and resources on the

State Bar of Texas’ Jury Service Committee website. The website has many resources for judges, including a sample

“thank you” letter to send to jurors selected for service on a jury.

The State Bar of Texas Jury Service Committee is dedicated to developing and implementing programs to ensure

broad citizen participation and support of jury service. Visit the Committee’s website for additional resources,

including public service announcements, educational pamphlets, and articles of interest. Links to all of the Jury

Service Committee resources are available at www.texasbar.com

Judges are, among other things, leaders. Leadership in promoting the effort to raise awareness, provide

information, and express appreciation for our jurors can, and should, start with the judges who summon jurors for

service. We can work in collaboration with our clerks and local bar associations to formulate plans that work well

for the courts we serve.

By small, intentional, consistent acts of appreciation, jurors will better understand their critical role in our

system of justice and truly feel our gratitude.

1 Judge Northcutt serves as the judge of the 8th Judicial District and has recently started his second term.

2 https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Jury_Information&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay cfm&ContentID=23435.

3 http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/analysis/pdf/SB00565F.pdf#navpanes=0.

4 Tex. Gov’t. Code § 662.155.


On October 30, 2017 we opened our 41st annual conference in Austin, Texas. We were honored to have Court personnel from all over the great state of Texas attend! Everything from the speakers, session topics and overall conference was tailored to our members expressed needs and wishes from the evaluations provided from previous years. We made many individual and group memories, but two of the highlights from this year’s conference was: (1) watching our members, new and seasoned, come together at our Members reception and (2) seeing one of our most respected and requested speaker, friend, and greatest supporter, Honorable Laura Weiser, receive the Justice Charles W. Barrow Award. In looking at the theme, I hope we that we continue to…Help the “people” (everyone) we meet each day, in finding their “purpose” (getting/providing justice) along their pathway (journey).

2017 TACA CONFERENCE OVERVIEW41ST Annual Education Conference

“People, Purposes, Pathways”


MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE REPORTGreetings TACA Family,

I hope everyone has survived the holiday season. Membership would like to commend the TACA Board and the Education Committee for putting on an outstanding 41st Annual Education Conference. Hopefully, everyone was able to take some useful information back to their courts.

Membership sends a BIG THANK YOU to the Sheraton Austin Hotel at the Capital for sponsoring the Member Reception. Your generosity was greatly appreciated by our Association. The 1st Time Attendees door prize winners were Belinda Armendariz, Sarah Bishop, Tammy Brown, Jennifer Bunting, Barbara Crabb, Rachel Crisler, Judith Delapaz, Phyliss Duke, Jessica Esparaza, Teresia Greenhaw, Yvonne Guerra, Melissa Hammond, Margie Hannah, Mariah Hawkins, Enrique Hernandez, Bertha Jacobs, Jamie Leal, Gloria Noriega, Marco Perez, Martha Prew, Cecilia Rangel, Rosie Rivera, Michelle Rodarte, Michelle Sanders, Kristen Stallings, DeAnn Sturdivant, Gene Valentini, Eddie Villanueva, and Missi Walden.

After the Election, your 2017-2018 TACA Board is Wendi Pearson (Chair), Laura Conte, Gracie Garcia, Dorlisa Patton and Karen Warr.

The winner of the new member contest was Perla Diaz of Cameron County (meaning that she signed up the most new members during the last year). For her efforts, Perla won a brand new $100.00 bill. Way to go Perla.

We had three really exceptional women nominated for the 2017 Member of the Year. Their work and dedication to TACA during the past year has been extraordinary. Congratulations to Kerchelle Johnson of Tarrant County our 2017 Member of the Year. Membership also congratulates Barbara Coney and Paige Park for being 2017 MOY Finalist. Also during the Awards Luncheon the one and only Ed Wells of Harris County was named 2017 Honorary Member of the Year. Ed’s untiring support for TACA through the years have been exemplary. Ed, our membership really appreciate all you do and have done for our association.

Lastly, thank you to the membership committee members for a job well done and for donating the wonderful gifts for door prizes given to the 1st Time Attendees Reception. Your hard work and dedication to TACA is truly appreciated.

As always, TACA is your Association and “Together We Can Make It Work!”

Jerome ColemanMembership Committee Co-ChairProbate CourtDenton County, Texas


SPECIAL RECOGNITION AWARDS


COURT ADMINISTRATIONWe’re all cogs in the same wheel: judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, court coordinators, bailiffs. Too often,

it doesn’t seem to be that way. But, whether we like it or not, we are.

The justice system is a unique animal. Before I chose to pursue a degree in the law, I worked in public accounting, as an auditor. What I discovered during my time as an auditor was that most corporations are designed to work in synergistic harmony. In other words, tens or hundreds or even thousands of separate departments or groups contribute in some small way to a larger whole. Often, I thought of it the same way one might consider an automobile assembly line: someone forklifts a naked chassis onto the line; one person adds seats; another bolts them in place; someone else does interior, electronics, and on down the line until a freshly painted Buick rolls out of production. Everyone has a different job, but collectively, they’re all working to create the same product.

That isn’t the criminal justice system. Our system isn’t one designed to operate harmoniously. Ours is an adversarial system. Each cog in the wheel operates independent of the others. There is an inherent tension that exists—and must exist—for the system to maintain its fidelity. For the wheels of justice to turn properly, each of us must perform our function well. For the wheels of justice to turn smoothly and efficiently, each of us must shoulder a proportionate share of the burden. And for the wheels of justice to turn fairly, we must maintain the adversarial tension with which our system was designed.

But, tension ought not be conflated with rancor.

Throughout my career, I have always done my best to be friendly with those I encounter in the courtroom. Admittedly, in this business, sometimes conviviality is a bit of a challenge. Those days I have, at least, done my best to conduct myself with professionalism. Obviously, I’m not the only one. Despite the daily challenges we all face in the due course of administering justice, the overwhelming majority of those I have encountered and observed have been pleasant and professional. Fortunately, it has always seemed to me that most of us understand what’s at stake.

So, despite the fact that we exist in an adversarial system, my point isn’t to suggest we are adversaries.

Instead, my point is to suggest we are equals.

I have been in Counties and worked in courtrooms where the defense bar seems to be treated as members of some other team; that those who appear daily in the same courtroom are cloven together, duty-bound to fight the accused and those that represent them. Fortunately, those experiences are rare. But, they happen.

I get it.

The criminal justice system is a grind. Every. Single. Day. It can be maddening, exhausting, and tedious. It can engender the kind of righteous indignation that overwhelms its object to infect larger groups. It can cost a person a fair share of their faith in humanity.

That kind of pressure has been used by militaries around the world, for millennia, to bind fighting men and women together; to create a sense of dependence and brotherhood (and sisterhood). Quite unintentionally, I


think, that is exactly the kind of camaraderie I sometimes see developing between and among those who share the same space in this business, day in and day out.

Defense work—at least retained defense work—is, by its very nature, nomadic. I’m not in the same courtroom every day. I’m not in the same Counties every day. My personal motto has always been: ‘Have truck. Will travel.’ Though my office is located in Harris County, there are District and County courts here I haven’t set foot in for years. That isn’t by design. That isn’t something they prepared me for in law school. It is simply a reality I came to understand a short time after hanging my own shingle.

I don’t work for the government. I don’t work for a corporation. I work for the people—one individual at a time. And, unlike governments and corporations, most people aren’t rich; particularly those who are apt to be accused of committing crime. So, planting my flag and refusing to abandon its borders is a luxury I simply cannot afford.

I think that is a condition that describes a great many defense lawyers. Because of that, it makes us, too often, seem like strangers in strange lands.

It makes logical sense that the prosecutors who toil in the same courtrooms and Counties every day would find themselves counted as part of the team. As a defense lawyer, I don’t take issue with the friendships and relationships that develop under such circumstances. I’ve made plenty such friendships with court staff of my own. But, I do think the observation merits an occasional reminder of why the system was designed the way it was.

Fairness.

It isn’t enough that the system be fair. It has to also appear fair. The adversarial requirements that define our separate roles aren’t there to create enmity between the professionals that allow the system to work. They’re there to ensure that citizens accused, and those who honor their duty to judge them, see a justice system that favors only the rule of law.

As a collective, we are the connective tissue that allows society to persist. After all, society is little more than a group of disparate people who have organized themselves together for a greater common purpose. What keeps that loose coalition paddling in the same direction is faith that transgressions from societal norms will be adjudged in the same manner.

We all have our roles to play.

But, in my opinion, we have to fight to ensure we don’t form teams.

Rick Oliver is a criminal trial and appellate lawyer. In 2016, Rick was certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Criminal

Law. He applied for board certification less than 7 years after being licensed and having never worked under another attorney, or as

an assistant district attorney, and without relying on a single court appointment in order to meet the application requirements. He

is a 2007 graduate of South Texas College of Law and has been a solo practitioner since 2008. In 2000, Rick received a Bachelor

of Science in Business Administration from Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas. He completed his graduate-level coursework the

following year, and received a Master of Science degree, in Accounting. His article have been published in the Voice and The Defender.

He is a member of TCDLA, HCCLA, MCCDLA, NACDL, NCDD, and DUIDLA.


2017 SERVICE AWARDS

5 YEARS

10 YEARS

15 YEARS 20 YEARS


2017 - 2018 MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

Board Liaison: Gracie V. Garcia

Gracie V. Garcia (Liaison)Court AdministratorWebb County111th District Court 1110 Victoria, Suite 301Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Carol Pelzel (Co-Chair)Court AdministratorDenton County393rd District Court1450 East McKinney, Suite 4105Denton, Texas 76209(940) [email protected]

Perla DiazCourt AdministratorCameron CountyCounty Court at Law No. 2974 E. HarrisonBrownsville, Texas 78520(956) [email protected]

Dawn McEwenCourt CoordinatorHarris CountyCounty Court at Law No. 3201 Caroline, 5th FloorHouston, Texas 77002(713) [email protected]

Sylvia NoriegaCourt AdministratorTom Green, Concho, Runnels, Coke, Sterling, Iron, and Schleicher County340th District Court112 West BeauregardSan Angelo, Texas 76903(325) [email protected]

Rosie RogersCourt CoordinatorSmith County321st District Court100 North BroadwayTyler, Texas(903) [email protected]

Karen WarrCourt ManagerShelby County123rd & 273rd District Courts200 San Augustine, Suite 3Center, Texas 75935(936) [email protected]

Jerome Coleman (Co-Chair)Court AdministratorDenton CountyProbate Court1450 E. McKinney, #2412Denton, Texas 76209(940) [email protected]

Leila OlivarriCourt AdministratorCollin County199th District Court2100 BloomdaleMcKinney, Texas 75071(972) [email protected]

Dorlisa PattonCourt AdministratorNacogdoches CountyNacogdoches County Court at Law101 W, MainNacogdoches, Texas 75964(936) [email protected]

Lorraine PerezCourt ClerkCameron CountyCounty Court at Law No. 1 & 3974 E. HarrisonBrownsville, Texas 78520(956) [email protected]

Rosie RiveraCourt CoordinatorWebb CountyCounty Court at Law No.21110 Victoria St. Suite 404Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Debbie WomackAssistant Court CoordinatorMontgomery CountyCounty Court at Law No. 3301 N. Main, Suite 110Conroe, Texas 77301(936) [email protected]


TACA NIGHT OUT & NEW MEMBER CELEBRATION

TACA GIRLS JUST WANNA TO HAVE FUN!


2017 TACA NEW MEMBERS RECEPTION


Hello TACA Members,

I hope that everyone had a great year so far.

The Education Committee is dedicated to providing our membership with an annual conference that not only meets but exceeds the needs of our members. We do this by finding and recruiting new speakers, finding new vendors and coming up with ideas and themes that appeal to our membership.

Plans are well on their way for this coming year’s conference. In January, there was a lot of progress at the Planning and Action Meeting that was held in San Antonio, Texas. We reviewed the evaluations submitted by you, the members, which were a big help for us and provided much insight on what to add to the 2018 conference. We took the suggestions submitted by some of our members regarding speakers, themes, and other important factors so that we could put on another great conference. All the suggestions were considered and discussed before the agenda was settled on. This year’s TACA theme is “Piecing Justice Together”.

At this time, we would like to tell you of some important changes made within the Education Committee. We would like to let you know that Dawn McEwen and Stephanie Bacon are the Co-Vendor Coordinators. We would like to also welcome Karen Warr as the new liaison for the Education Committee. Karen was just elected to the Board of Directors at this past conference and Wendi Pearson who was our board liaison was elected as TACA Chair.

As you know, we would be unable to do our jobs without the help of our committee members and volunteers. We would like to once again, thank all of you who volunteered to be moderators and to help at the registration desk at this past year’s conference!! We also want to thank all those that signed up to be part of the Education Committee. If you did not sign up, but would like to help, there is still time to join our fantastic committee!!

If you have any question or suggestions for topics, speakers, vendors or changes that you would like to see please feel free to contact me the Education Committee Chair, Perla Diaz at [email protected] or any of the other committee members or board members . We are here to help you in any way we can!!!!

As Jerome Coleman always says “Remember TACA is your Association and Together We Can Make It Work.”

Perla Diaz Education Committee Chair

EDUCATION COMMITTEE REPORT

2017 - 2018 EDUCATION COMMITTEEBoard Liaison: Karen Warr

Karen Warr (Liaison)Court ManagerShelby County123rd & 273rd District Courts200 San Augustine, Suite 3Center, Texas 75935(936) [email protected]

Dawn McEwen (Co-Vendor Coord.)Court CoordinatorHarris CountyCounty Civil Court at Law No. 3201 Caroline, 5th FloorHouston, Texas 77002(713) [email protected]

Perla Diaz (Chair)Court AdministratorCameron CountyCourt at Law No. 2974 E. HarrisonBrownsville, Texas 78520(956) [email protected]

Stephanie Bacon (Co-Vendor Coord.)Court CoordinatorDallas County160th Civil District Court600 Commerce St., Room 610Dallas, Texas 75202(214) [email protected]

Delilah AlvarezCourt CoordinatorHidalgo CountyChild Protection Court of the Rio Grande WestP.O. Box 1356Edinburg, Texas 78540(956) [email protected]

Tricia AustinCourt CoordinatorBexar County379th District Court300 Dolorosa, Suite 4.129San Antonio, Texas 78205(210) [email protected]


2017 - 2018 EDUCATION COMMITTEE CONT’D

Tammy BrownCourt CoordinatorLubbock County99th District Court904 BroadwayLubbock, Texas 79401(806) [email protected]

Jennifer BuntingCourt CoordinatorBurnet County424th Judicial District Court701 E. Polk Street, Suite 74Burnet, Texas 78611(512) [email protected]

Patricia CandelaCourt AdministratorCameron CountyCounty Court at Law No. 1974 E Harrison StreetBrownsville, Texas 78520(956) [email protected]

Ester CantuCourt CoordinatorHidalgo County92nd District Court100 N. Closner, 2nd FloorEdinburg, Texas 78539(956) [email protected]

Paul ClarkstonCriminal Coordinator & Court AdministratorSmith CountyCounty Court at Law No. 2100 N. BroadwayTyler, Texas 75702(903) [email protected]

Jerome ColemanCourt AdministratorDenton CountyProbate Court1450 East McKinney, No. 2412Denton, Texas 76209(940) [email protected]

Jolene DuboiseCourt CoordinatorParker County43rd District Court117 Fort Worth StreetWeatherford, Texas 76086(817) [email protected]

Lillian FanningCourt ManagerNueces County1th District Court901 Leopard StreetCorpus Christi, Texas 78415(361) [email protected]

Joann FentanesCourt CoordinatorGalveston County212th District Court600 59th StGalveston, Texas 77551(409) [email protected]

Frank FuentesCivil coordinatorHidalgo County398th District Court100 N. ClosnerEdinburg, Texas 78539(956) [email protected]

Ailynn GalvanCourt CoordinatorHidalgo County389th Judicial District Court100 N. Closer, 2nd FloorEdinburg, Texas 78539(956) [email protected]

Andrew GarciaCourt ManagerNueces County347th District Court901 Leopard Suite 804Corpus Christi, Texas 78415(361) [email protected]

Gracie V. GarciaCourt AdministratorWebb County111th District Court1110 Victoria, Suite 301Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Dora GonzalesCourt CoordinatorKendall CountyChild Protection Court of South Texas201 East San Antonio, Suite 224Boerne, Texas 78006(830) [email protected]

Jacobe GrahamCourt CoordinatorDallas CountyCriminal Court No. 11133 N. Riverfront Blvd, LB 48Dallas, Texas 75207(214) [email protected]

Regina GreenCourt CoordinatorFort Bend CountyCounty Court at Law No. 1301 Jackson Street, Room 101Richmond, Texas 77469(281) [email protected]

Melissa HammondCourt CoordinatorHarris CountyCivil Court at Law No. 11201 Franklin, 7th FloorHouston, Texas 77002(713) [email protected]

Leslie HawseyCourt AdministratorHarrison County200 W. Houston, Room 219Marshall, Texas 75670(903) [email protected]

Javith JimenezCourt ClerkEl Paso CountyOffice of the County Clerk500 E. San AntonioEl Paso, Texas 79901(915) [email protected]

Karla LealCourt CoordinatorCameron CountyCounty Court at Law No. 2974 E. HarrisonBrownsville, Texas 78520(956) [email protected]

Pete LobatoCourt CoordinatorHidalgo County139th District Court100 N. Closner, 2nd FloorEdinburg, Texas 78539(956) [email protected]


2017 - 2018 EDUCATION COMMITTEE CONT’D

Jacobe GrahamCourt CoordinatorDallas CountyCriminal Court No. 11133 N. Riverfront Blvd, LB 48Dallas, Texas 75207(214) [email protected]

Regina GreenCourt CoordinatorFort Bend CountyCounty Court at Law No. 1301 Jackson Street, Room 101Richmond, Texas 77469(281) [email protected]

Melissa HammondCourt CoordinatorHarris CountyCivil Court at Law No. 11201 Franklin, 7th FloorHouston, Texas 77002(713) [email protected]

Leslie HawseyCourt AdministratorHarrison County200 W. Houston, Room 219Marshall, Texas 75670(903) [email protected]

Javith JimenezCourt ClerkEl Paso CountyOffice of the County Clerk500 E. San AntonioEl Paso, Texas 79901(915) [email protected]

Karla LealCourt CoordinatorCameron CountyCounty Court at Law No. 2974 E. HarrisonBrownsville, Texas 78520(956) [email protected]

Pete LobatoCourt CoordinatorHidalgo County139th District Court100 N. Closner, 2nd FloorEdinburg, Texas 78539(956) [email protected]

Fernando LozanoProbate Court CoordinatorWebb CountyCounty Court at Law No. 11110 Victoria St., Suite 303Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Sheryl ManisCourt CoordinatorFannin County336th Judicial District Court101 East Sam Rayburn Drive, Suite 200Bonham, Texas 75418(903) [email protected]

Elva OlivoCourt CoordinatorCameron County107th District Court974 E. HarrisonBrownsville, Texas 78520(956) [email protected]

Paige E. ParksCourt CoordinatorRockwall CountyCourt at Law1111 E. Yellowjacket Lane, Suite 403Rockwall, Texas 75087(972) [email protected]

Alicia PenaCourt CoordinatorKerr CountyCourt at Law700 Main St., Room 123Kerrville, Texas 78028(830) [email protected]

Lorraine PerezCourt CoordinatorCameron County103rd District Court974 E. HarrisonBrownsville, Texas 78520(956) [email protected]

Carol D. PelzelCourt AdministratorDenton County393rd District Court1450 East McKinney, Suite 4105Denton, Texas 76209(940) [email protected]

Kim PlummerCourt CoordinatorVictoria County377th Judicial District Court101 North Bridge, Room 104Victoria, Texas 779014(361) [email protected]

Tomas QuinteroRecords CoordinatorCameron CountyCourt at Law No. 2974 E. HarrisonBrownsville, Texas 78521(956) [email protected]

Delma RamirezCourt CoordinatorMidland CountyChild Protection Court of the Permian Basin703 North Midkiff RoadMidland, Texas 79701(432) [email protected]

Cecilia RangelCourt AdministratorCameron County445th District Court974 E. Harrison St.Brownsville, Texas 78520(956) [email protected]

Maria ReynaCriminal CoordinatorHidalgo CountyIndigent Defense100 N. Closner Annex 1Edinburg, Texas 78539(956) [email protected]

Rosie RiveraCourt CoordinatorWebb CountyCounty Court at Law No. 21110 Victoria St., Suite 404Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Lynda RobertsonAssistant Court CoordinatorRockwall County439th District Court1111 E. Yellowjacket Lane, suite 401Rockwall, Texas 75087(972) [email protected]

Rosie RogersCourt CoordinatorSmith County321st District Court100 North BroadwayTyler, Texas 757052(903) [email protected]

Graciela SolisCriminal Court CoordinatorWebb County49th District Court1110 Victoria Street, Suite 304Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Lisa SolisCourt CoordinatorBexar County227th District Court300 Dolorosa, Suite 4.199San Antonio, Texas 78205(210) [email protected]

Martha StilesCourt CoordinatorBexar CountyCounty Court at Law300 Dolorosa, Suite 2.153San Antonio, Texas 78205(210) [email protected]

Peggy ThrasherCourt CoordinatorLiberty County75th District Court1923 Sam Houston, Room 304Liberty, Texas 77575(936) [email protected]

Norma VillanuevaCourt CoordinatorAtascosa County81st & 218th Judicial District Court#1 Courthouse Circle Dr., Suite 206Jourdanton, Texas 78026(830) [email protected]

Debbie WomackAssistant Court CoordinatorMontgomery CountyMontgomery County Court at Law No. 3301 N. Main, Suite 110Conroe, Texas 77301(936) [email protected]


VENDORShowcase

Unfortunately, we were unable to get pictures of all of our vendors in attendance, but would still like to honor the following:

• Court Innovations• Praeger Safety Diagnostics, Inc.• Infax, Inc.• Journal Technologies• Justice AV Solutions• Mentis Technology Solutions• Response Technologies• Revolutionary Text, LLC• TechShare• Tyler Technologies


A high-profile case can land in any jurisdiction at any time. A rough definition of a high-profile case is a case that attracts enough media or public attention that the court must or should make significant alterations to ordinary court procedures to manage it. The case may be the result of a celebrity or pro athlete being arrested, a particularly egregious crime, or some other reason. However, the additional pressure on the court system caused by the presence of the media or the public that the case attracts can be a significant challenge, even for a jurisdiction that has previously experienced a high-profile case and is well prepared. For other jurisdictions, it can be a nightmare. In worst-case scenarios, the fairness of the adjudicative process may be compromised. It is, therefore, important to know what tools are available to courts when a high-profile case has been filed in their jurisdiction.

In 1992 the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) published Managing Notorious Trials. It was the first significant work dedicated to help trial judges, court managers, and other court personnel plan for and litigate cases that would receive significant public scrutiny. The book was updated and republished in 1998 to add some additional information and refine the existing information. However, nearly 20 years have passed since the publication of the updated work. During that time, the Internet, social media, and cell phones were developed and are used by almost the entire population. The way information moves among members of the public has fundamentally changed, and these changes have created new challenges for the court community. As a result, the publication needed to be updated.

NCSC partnered with the Conference of Chief Public Information Officers and the National Judicial College to update the book. The project was generously funded by the State Justice Institute. In the fall of 2015, a panel of judges, court administrators, jury managers, reporters, and others convened in Reno, Nevada. Each member of the panel had experience with at least one high-profile case; some had experience with several. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss substantive alterations to the content to make it more meaningful and useful. The group also determined that a Web-based resource would be accessible to a wider audience and it would be available immediately, while in the past the books were shipped without cost but would take several days to arrive via common carrier. It was also determined the title of the new resource would be changed to Managing High-Profile Cases in the 21st Century and would be available exclusively on the Web.

The Managing High-Profile Cases in the 21st Century website is located at www.ncsc.org/hpc. This resource takes the approach that there is no single best solution to managing a high-profile case; rather, the court must address an array of known considerations, and the website provides suggestions for possible solutions. Therefore, a court facing a high-profile case can consider the unique characteristics of the case, their courthouse facility, and the other resources they may have access to within their jurisdiction or state to develop a plan to manage the case. One key suggestion is taking a team approach to managing a high-profile case, with the trial judge being the team leader. The reason for this approach is to relieve the trial judge of as much of the administrative responsibility as possible to give the judge more time to focus on the litigation of the case. Trial judges who have successfully managed a high-profile case generally agree that this approach is beneficial.

The website describes the approach to building a high-profile-case team. It suggests that courts should refer to a “continuity of operations plan,” which they created to manage court operations in the event of a disaster, as a starting point for creating the high-profile-case team. In some ways, a high-profile case can have a similar impact on the courts as a natural disaster. However, the website identifies the recommended membership of the high-

Managing High-Profile CasesBy Greg Hurley, Knowledge and Information Services Analyst, National Center for State Courts


profile-case team by role, rather than by job title. This was done deliberately because of the wide variance in job titles among the courts nationally. Also, in some very rural jurisdictions, it is possible that a single person may fill more than one role. The core roles are the trial judge, an administrative (chief or president) judge, court manager, media relations, court security, jury management, information technology, and other trial support functions. This list can certainly be expanded based on the needs of the jurisdiction. However, it is suggested that as soon as it becomes known that a high-profile case has been filed in the jurisdiction, or a preexisting garden-variety case has become high-profile, the membership of the high-profile-case team should be identified and should meet to begin the planning process.

The website lists the responsibilities of each role. For many of the roles, there is detailed information from actual cases, which describes how particular considerations were managed. There are also checklists to help ensure that all the possible issues that may develop in a high-profile case are identified and can, therefore, be properly addressed. Additionally, there are several orders used in actual cases that trial judges may find useful as templates in crafting orders for their own high-profile cases, such as decorum orders, limiting orders, security orders, etc.

To give a sense of the breadth of the available information, the website contains a list of the “critical constitutional caselaw” that judges should be aware of when handling a high-profile case. Each case also has a squib, which briefly describes the facts and the holding of the case. Although this page is not a substitute for detailed legal research, it provides a starting point and can quickly let a judge know if a proposed action is likely to create litigation and possibly an appellate issue. For example, the resource describes the six U.S. Supreme Court opinions that address the constitutional presumption that criminal cases will be open to the public and the limits of that presumption. Additionally, the page identifies the three state supreme court opinions, and one from the D.C. Court of Appeals, that address situations wherein a trial judge promised jurors that case-specific juror questionnaires would remain confidential. A brief review of those cases suggests that trial judges should refrain from promising jurors confidentiality in those questionnaires.

The website also provides information on media relations. The media have a right to access proceedings, but that right is not unlimited. The website describes techniques for getting the media to use “media pools” and effectively share video and audio feeds. It discusses the use of overflow rooms, which the media often prefer to use. In an overflow room, the media can not only see and hear the proceedings via closed-circuit television but also use computers and telephones, talk among themselves, etc., without disrupting the proceedings. Additionally, there is a discussion about strategies to get media outlets to pay for any infrastructure improvements that the media may want for the high-profile case.

Although it is not possible in an article to fully describe the Managing High-Profile Cases in the 21st Century website, it is hoped that the above description gives enough detail that the reader will remember and use it in a high-profile case. It may even be prudent to briefly familiarize oneself with the resource now. It is important to remember that a high-profile case can become a reality to any court at any time.


SCHOLARSHIP COMMITTEE REPORTA huge THANK YOU goes out to all who made the 2017 scholarship program a success. The scholarship

committee did a fabulous job of raising funds, collecting raffle donations and selling raffle tickets. Because of your efforts, the scholarship committee was able to grant the following scholarships in 2017:

The Honorable Jack Dillard Scholarship

Recipient

Wendi PearsonTaylor County

Founders Scholarship Recipients

Martha PrewWebb County

Marco Antonio-PerezWebb County

Sheryl ManisFannin County

Goodwill Scholarship Recipients

Melissa HammondHarris County

Dorlisa PattonNacogdoches County

Barbara ConleyHarris County

Thank you TACA members for your continuous support of the Goodwill raffle table. All funds made from raffle ticket sales go directly toward funding Goodwill Scholarships. The more tickets we sell, the more Goodwill Scholarships we are able to grant!

Jerome’s helpful hint-

If you want to save time filling out your tickets, bring some address labels to next year’s conference!

A big “SHOUT OUT” to members who not only collected donations but made donations themselves!Jerome Coleman, Elisa Avila, Natalia Contreras, Wendi Pearson, Dottie McDonald, Barbara Conley, Dawn McEwen, Karen Ellis, Judge Jean Spradling, and Anonymous (you know who you are…)

For 2017, the Scholarship Committee collected $2480.00 in general fund donations and raffle ticket sales netted $2217.15.

A large portion of our scholarship program is funded by our community justice partners. Because of their support and generosity, many TACA members are afforded the opportunity to attend the annual education conference and advanced education opportunities.


TO OUR WONDERFUL JUSTICE PARTNERS

Thank YouMABAH-Mexican American Bar Association of Houston

Jeanie Dickey-Attorney at Law, HoustonJimmy Ortiz-Attorney at Law, HoustonChip Lewis- Attorney at Law, HoustonTodd Leffler-Attorney at Law, Houston

Brian Cweren- Attorney at Law, HoustonBonilla & Chapa, P.C., Corpus Christi

Law Office of Monte English, Corpus ChristiGale Law Group, Corpus Christi

Antonio & Armando Gonzalez Law Firm, Corpus ChristiBatek & Robinson Law Office, Corpus Christi

Cassidy, Delgado & Olivarez Law Firm, Corpus ChristiLaw Office of Chris Waller, Corpus Christi

Sam Darnell, Attorney at Law, AbileneEthan Humber, Abilene

Smart Start

If you know any of the above Justice Partners, please be sure to give them a big TACA THANK YOU.

Finally, thank you to the Scholarship committee. Your time, treasure and talent are what make this committee a success! Your commitment and dedication are never ending and let’s do it again in 2018!

We appreciate you and value your contribution to TACA!


2017 - 2018 SCHOLARSHIP COMMITTEEBoard Liaison: Laura Conte

Laura Conte (Liaison)Court CoordinatorHarris CountyCriminal Court at Law No. 151201 Franklin, 7th FloorHouston, Texas 77002(832) [email protected]

Tricia AustinCourt CoordinatorBexar County379th District Court300 Dolorosa, Suite 4.129San Antonio, Texas 78205(210) [email protected]

Jerome ColemanCourt AdministratorDenton CountyProbate Court1450 E. McKinney, #2412Denton, Texas 76209(940) [email protected]

Barbara ConleyTrial CoordinatorHarris County157th District Court201 Caroline #1100Houston, Texas 77002(832) [email protected]

Jeremy CossCriminal Court CoordinatorWebb CountyCounty Court at Law No. 11110 Victoria St., Suite 303Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Jennifer Bunting (Chair)Court CoordinatorBurnet County424th Judicial District Court1701 E. Polk Street, Suite 74Burnet, Texas 78611(512) [email protected]

Perla DiazCourt AdministratorCameron CountyCounty Court at Law No. 2974 E. HarrisonBrownsville, Texas 78520(956) [email protected]

Yolanda FloridoCourt CoordinatorHarris CountyCounty Criminal Court at Law #41201 Franklin, 7th FloorHouston, Texas 77002(832) [email protected]

Gracie GarciaCourt AdministratorWebb County111th District Court1110 Victoria, Suite 301Laredo Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Karen HarrisonCourt CoordinatorHarris CountyCounty Criminal Court at Law #11201 Franklin, 7th FloorHouston, TX. 77002(832) [email protected]

Leslie HawseyCourt AdministratorHarrison County71st Judicial District200 W. Houston, Room 219Marshall, Texas 75672(903)[email protected]

Joanne InguanzoCivil/Family Court CoordinatorHarris CountyCounty Court at Law No. 11110 Victoria St, Suite 303Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Karla A. LealCourt CoordinatorCameron CountyCounty Court at Law No. 2974 E. HarrisonBrownsville, Texas 78520(956) [email protected]

Linda R. LeonardCourt CoordinatorLiberty County253rd District Court1923 Sam HoustonLiberty, Texas(936) [email protected]

Alma MartinezCourt Administrative AssistantWebb County49th District Court1110 Victoria Street, Suite 304Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]


2016 - 2017 SCHOLARSHIP COMMITTEE CONT’D

Dawn McEwenCourt CoordinatorHarris CountyCounty Court at Law No. 3201 Caroline, 5th FloorHouston, Texas 77002(832) [email protected]

Dorlisa PattonCourt AdministratorNacogdoches CountyNacogdoches County Court at Law101 W, MainNacogdoches, Texas 75964(936) [email protected]

Carol PelzelCourt AdministratorDenton County393rd District Court1450 East McKinney, Suite 4105Denton, Texas 76209(940) [email protected]

Dolores PhillipsCourt CoordinatorHarris CountyCounty Court at Law No. 51201 Franklin, 7th FloorHouston, Texas 77002(832) [email protected]

Jose Juan RamirezJuvenile Court CoordinatorWebb CountyCounty Court at Law No. 11110 Victoria St., Suite 303Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Robyn Reyes Court ClerkWebb CountyCounty Court at Law No. 11110 Victoria St., Suite 303Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Lisa RogerioCourt AdministratorWebb County49th District Court1110 Victoria Street, Suite 304Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Mary SmithCourt CoordinatorHarris CountyCounty Criminal Court at Law No. 131201 Franklin, 7th FloorHouston, Texas 77002(832) [email protected]

Graciela SolisCriminal Court CoordinatorWebb County49th District Court1110 Victoria St., Suite 304Laredo, Texas 78040(956) [email protected]

Lisa SolisCourt CoordinatorBexar County227th District Court300 Dolorosa, Suite 4.199San Antonio, Texas 78205(210) [email protected]

Martha StilesCourt CoordinatorBexar County144th District Court300 Dolorosa, Suite 2.153San Antonio, Texas 78205(210) [email protected]

Angela YounglasCourt CoordinatorLubbock County364th District Court904 BroadwayLubbock, Texas 74901(806) [email protected]


LET’S “TACA” BOUT TAMMY BROOKS…

If you have been to a TACA conference in the last three years you will know there is one member who has been “blessed” by the purse goddess of the raffle table.

Our very own Tammy Brooks from Brazoria County has now won three Michael Kors handbags in the last three years! If you were at the 2015 conference in Galveston, you may remember her excited scream of joy when her name was called…followed by the victory strut back to her table sporting a new Michael Kors purse and wallet. Unfortunately, she was not able to attend the annual education conference in 2016. So, this last year Tammy won not one, but TWO Michael Kors handbags! Winning two was perfect, since she had missed the previous year, right?

She loves supporting the Goodwill Scholarship Fund and never dreamed she would win even the first purse. It was a win for TACA members and a win for her!

Since she is on a winning streak, we had to know her strategy. Her tip: Spread it out! She buys her tickets at the beginning of the conference, and while she does put the majority of her tickets in the purse boxes, she doesn’t put them all in on the same day.

Tammy has been a TACA member since 2011, and attended all but one annual education conference since joining. Interested in learning more about Tammy? She is the “Meet the Member” for this edition of the Journal.


NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE REPORTHello Everyone,

We appreciate the opportunity to serve you, our members. During the 41 Annual Education Conference there

were two positions open on the TACA Board. All of the nominees to fill the two positions were made from the

floor, which is permitted by our by-laws. After the Election, Laura Conte of Harris County and Karen Warr of

Shelby County were elected to the Board. Your 2017-2018 TACA Board is Wendi Pearson (chair), Laura Conte,

Gracie Garcia, Dorlisa Patton, Karen Warr and Dean Stanzione (Immediate pass Chair).

On behalf of the Nominations Committee Liaison, Dean Stanzione, and the Nominations Committee Members,

thank you for allowing us to serve you. Please feel free to contact any Nominations Committee member or visit

us online at www.mytaca.org.

Jerome Coleman Nominations Committee Member

[email protected]

2017 - 2018 NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE

Board Liaison: Dean Stanzione

Dean Stanzione – ChairDirector of Court Admin. Lubbock CountyP.O. Box 10503(806) [email protected]

Aleida Castillo – General JurisdictionCourt Administrator293rd District Court500 Quarry Street, Suite 4Eagle Pass, Texas 78852(830) [email protected]

Jerome Coleman – Urban CountyCourt AdministratorDenton County Probate Court1450 E. McKinney, #2412Denton, Texas 76209(940) [email protected]

Perla Diaz – County CourtCourt AdministratorCameron County Court at Law #2974 E. Harrison StreetBrownsville, Texas 78520(956) [email protected]

*TBD - Multi County Court *TBD - Rural Court

*If you have been a member a TACA for at least three years and are interested in serving as the Multi or Rural Court representative, please contact Dean Stanzione.


Overview:In the following, I will review selected changes to Chapter 46B, Tex. Code Crim. Proc., as a result of SB 1326,

signed by the Governor on 6/12/2017 and effective on 9/1/2017.

The bill includes changes to several sections of the Tex. Code of Criminal Procedure relating to management and disposition of matters involving defendants with mental illness as well as persons with an intellectual disability, and readers are encouraged to look at the text of SB 1326 carefully in that regard. In addition, there are some specific changes to the Tex. Health & Safety Code, as appertains to the time frame for civil commitment.

Generally speaking, this legislation represents contributions from several sources and as a result, some elements do not flow smoothly. Moreover, efforts from many with wide experience in the criminal justice community were necessary to remove some features from the final bill which would have been very troublesome; e.g., an earlier version included language permitting the court to order psychoactive medication for Class B offenders committed for restoration to an outpatient program. For example, the language included the following provision which was removed in conference committee:

(d) An order issued under this article may require the defendant to participate in:…..(2) an appropriate prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, including care or treatment involving the administration of psychoactive medication, including those required under Article 46B.086.

Of course, Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) held that involuntary medical treatment involves issues of “clear constitutional importance,” and the due process clause would require a compelling state interest in forcing medication – which would ordinarily and in all likelihood not exist in matters involving confinement of six months or less, (see also State ex rel F.H. 214 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. App. – Tyler 2007), Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970), United States v. Evans, 404 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2005)).

There are, however, other items in SB 1326 representing substantial change as to the conceptualization of restoration treatment. For example, clinical treatment is separated from “education,” and a person who is “clinically ready and can be safely transferred to a competency restoration program for education services but has not yet attained competency to stand trial” may be so transferred for the balance of the period remaining on his/her restoration commitment. See Art. 46B.079(b) (1). More about this provision will be discussed below.

In the following, however, I will address, only a few of the changes imposed by SB 1326 – as many are not especially substantial in nature.

Magistrate’s duties under art. 16.22Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 16.22 has long provided for evaluation of persons believed to exhibit a mental illness

or intellectual disability. With the enactment of SB 1326, however, not less than twelve (12) hours after the sheriff – or municipal jailer – has reason to believe that a person may be a person with mental illness or intellectual disability, written notice shall be provided to the magistrate. The magistrate, in turn, shall either order an examination by

Statutory Changes Regarding Mentally Ill Defendants1

By Floyd L. Jennings, JD, PhD


the local mental health authority, or other qualified mental health professional, to make a determination (either by examination or review of extant information) if, indeed, the person has a mental illness or is a person with an intellectual disability. Should the person refuse, then the magistrate may order the person to be held for a reasonable period, not to exceed 72 hours, for such evaluation to occur.

Somewhat confusing language follows (see art. 16.22(b)), such that except as otherwise permitted by the magistrate, the written assessment shall be provided within 96 hours after the original order (for persons held in custody) and for persons released, within 30 days.

The troubling portion of the language in 16.22 – which has been extant, but largely gone unnoticed – is that the evaluation must not only answer the single issue of the presence of mental illness or intellectual disability, but “whether there is clinical evidence to support a belief that the defendant may be incompetent to stand trial and should undergo a complete competency examination.”

The foregoing is troubling because the issue is not ripe. In many, if not most cases, it is not possible to raise issues of competency at this point. Defendants either toxic or mentally unstable at magistration have just been booked – persons to be charged with felonies are not yet charged and being held solely on probable cause. The indictment will follow (or not). Thus, raising the issue of competency is premature. Better to identify the person as exhibiting a mental illness or intellectual disability (which, by the way, may not easily be made in the time frame available), and allow some time to determine the manner in which the condition will impair the defendant’s ability to relate to counsel, or the person’s rational and factual knowledge of the proceedings. Note also that with the attendant focus upon provision of some mental health services in jails, a period of time allowing for the person to be re-established on medications frequently results in stability sufficient to meet the standard for competency. One possible value of identifying the need for a full competency exam during the 16.22 exam, and including that information in the 16.22 report, is to have that information immediately on hand once charges are filed, and some opportunity to stabilize has occurred. Accordingly, the 16.22 report can serve as the evidence needed to order competency proceedings unless jail-based treatment has already resulted in sufficient stability[SB1].

DefinitionsA trick question has long been “What is the definition of competency in Texas statutes?” – But, in fact, there

is no definition of competency per se as Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 46B.003 defines incompetency and there is no corresponding definition in art. 46B.001 of competency. However, SB 1326 adds a definition of “competency restoration” that includes the positive statement of the state to which the person is being restored, e.g.:

(9) “Competency restoration” means the treatment or education process for restoring a person’s ability to consult with the person’s attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, including a rational and factual understanding of the court proceedings and charges against the person.

Noteworthy for that to which has already been alluded, herein the statement is “treatment” or “education” – separating the two.

Reporting to OCAAn addition to art. 46B.026 requires courts to submit to the Office of Court Administration (OCA) on a

monthly basis the number of reports provided to the court under this article.

Situs of Commitment for RestorationLikely, the most significant change to 46B has to with the changes to art. 46B.071 and .073 concerning the


differing sites for commitment of persons found incompetent based upon the nature of the charge and availability of options. The logic of SB 1326 is something like this:

a) Absent an art. 17.032(a) offense, or a finding under art. 42A.054(c), requiring the person to be committed to a maximum security facility, the initial question is: “Is the person not a danger to others and can the person be treated safely in the community?” If the answer is “yes” then the person is to be committed to an outpatient competency restoration program, of which there are only a handful in the state at present.

b) If the person could not be treated on an outpatient basis, or no outpatient program is available, the next alternative for the court is commitment to a jail-based competency restoration program - for which, as of August 2017, there are no programs extant in the approximately 240 jails in the State of Texas.

c) If neither an outpatient program is available, nor a jail-based program (or the person could not be treated safely on an outpatient basis, or a maximum security program is required), only then may the court commit a person to a mental health facility or residential care facility.

d) Even in the case when no other option is available, a Class B defendant may not be committed to a mental health facility or residential care program unless “a licensed or qualified mental health professional determines that a jail-based competency restoration program is not appropriate.” The standards for such determination are not specified; however, logically would relate to an opinion viz. the acuity of the person’s clinical condition that would warrant the intensive structure of an inpatient mental health facility. See art. 46B.073(f).

e) In addition, the predicate for an order committing a person to participate in an outpatient competency restoration program requires that the court: (1) receive and approve a comprehensive treatment plan; that (2) provides for treatment for the purposes of restoration and (3) identifies the person who will be responsible for providing that treatment to the defendant; and (4) the treatment proposed will be available to and will be provided to the defendant. See art. 46B.072(c).

Content of Court Order for Outpatient Restoration TreatmentSpecifically as regards outpatient competency restoration, the court may order Class B defendants to participate

in “an appropriate prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment.” Note, however, that forced medication for Class B defendants – for the purpose of restoration -- is in all likelihood invalid pursuant to Sell v. United States. For a thorough discussion of this issue, readers are encouraged to see Brian Shannon’s article in the St. Mary’s Law School Journal2.

For Class A and felony defendants, the court may order “an appropriate prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, including care or treatment involving the administration of psychoactive medication, including those required under Article 46B.086.” See art. 46B.072(d)(2).

Readers should be aware, however, that the requirements for judicial hearings on the issue of forced medication apply; e.g. first seeking an order under Tex. Health & Safety Code §574.106 and if that fails, then under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 46B.086.

Issues Relating to Outpatient Competency RestorationThere are several issues, or hurdles to overcome, regarding outpatient competency restoration programs.

These issues should be at the forefront of any proposed plan for outpatient restoration, so as avoid a plethora of treatment failures.


The first is that is far wiser to conceptualize release as for the purpose of courtordered treatment and not “release on bail” – unless there are no conditions whatsoever attached. The logic is that a person who has been found incompetent is to be considered as incompetent at all stages of the proceedings. (See discussion in Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993)). Consequently, an incompetent person could scarcely execute the affidavit to appear as in Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 17.04. Wiser, therefore, that the court would simply order release of the defendant from custody for the sole purpose of participation in an outpatient competency restoration program – much as would be the case were the defendant committed to the state hospital for an inpatient program.

The second issue has to do with housing: It is a sine qua non that defendants released to the community for purposes of restoration treatment must have stable housing. This means either that the person has familial or another housing circumstance which will provide some degree of stability – and the court should have assurance of same before commitment follows. For persons who are homeless, or whose acuity is such that they could not manage their behavior in a setting lacking controlled access and egress, or are unable to live independently – having funds for food, clothing, laundry, etc., there are serious questions about what kind of setting would afford a sufficient degree of stability.

The third issue, and certainly related to the foregoing, has to do with the person’s willingness and ability to manage his or her own medications. If either is lacking, it would be crucial that the defendant reside in a setting where a responsible person can ensure that the defendant receives prescribed medications at the designated time daily, or at the otherwise designated interval. Moreover, forced medication under the Tex. Health & Safety Code §574.106 permits only court intervention for persons housed in jail or inpatient settings. Even if forced medication were legally permissible on an outpatient basis, there are few psychiatric physicians bold enough to pursue this option for at least two reasons: (1) The means of forcibly administering medications to persons receiving outpatient treatment are limited. It is unlikely that any facility or program would send a team of staff to a person’s residence and exert the force necessary to medicate a person who is otherwise refusing; and the spectre of physicians or nurses riding around on motorcycles with medications in spring loaded dart guns, zapping refusing patients on sight, is simply ludicrous. And, (2), most providers would be very concerned as to the inability to monitor side-effects of medications administered under such conditions – likely impossible in an outpatient setting. Note that Professor Shannon has pointed out in a personal communication that an exception might be an “outpatient” program with a residential component. Though such a setting is more a hybrid than a strictly “outpatient” program. What is commonly considered is to establish a defendant/patient on a long-acting psychopharmacological agent requiring injections perhaps every three weeks or once a month – before they are placed on outpatient status. Only in such circumstances could the person be managed without necessity for extraordinary efforts to administer medications. If, however, the person is not medication complaint and otherwise not on long-acting agents, then the viability of participation in an outpatient program is greatly reduced.

The fourth issue related to outpatient competency restoration is transportation to the location of the program. It is not reasonable to expect that incompetent defendants could manage public transportation (if such even existed), and arrive at the location in a timely way. Were that the case, and the person had such functional capacities, they might well be a long way toward competency! Thus either the entity or some other means, such as family members, or staff at a personal care home, would be necessary to ensure that the person arrives at the program site as required.

Finally, the availability of outpatient competency restoration programs is limited in the State. Some programs are indistinguishable from conventional outpatient mental health treatment and such are less than desirable. In fact, programs which truly incorporate features of a day-treatment program plus the educational aspects appertaining


to court proceedings are truly few in number. For such would have on-site a psychiatric physician who sees the defendant/patients weekly, as well as structured programmatic activities throughout a work day (give or take, about six hours per day of structured treatment), benefits specialists to assist in re-obtaining public benefits, plus provision of lunch and mid-day medications. In addition, other staff required would include program specialists, and a psychologist to conduct re-evaluations of competency meeting the standard in accord with Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 46B.022 Anything less is not quite the standard – nor would it be the equivalent of an in-patient program save for housing and evening programming.

The net effect is that establishing regional outpatient programs is essential – even relying upon state hospital locations, though, to my knowledge, this option has not been floated generally, and may be rejected simply because of lack of space.

Time FramesIn the new legislation, the time frames for restoration commitment are as follows (46B.073).

Note that under 46B.079, a facility or program provider may notify a court that the initial restoration period is about to expire and include a request for a 60 day extension. In the following section (46B.080) is stated that “on a request of the head of a facility or a program provider that is made under Art. 46B.079(d) and notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the court may enter an order extending the initial restoration period for an additional period of 60 days.” Thus, it appears that any one of the program offerings, i.e. outpatient, jail-based or inpatient, may be extended beyond the period of initial restoration for a period of 60 days.

Transportation of DefendantArt. 46B.075 requires that save for outpatient restoration programs, the person is to be “placed in the custody

of the sheriff or sheriff ’s deputy for transportation to the facility.” The statute is silent upon whether a defendant can be released on bond pending such transfer; however, an incompetent defendant could scarcely be able to execute the promise to appear required of persons on bond, as discussed earlier.

Art. 46B.078 contains language that can only be described as troubling; for it states that “If the charges pending against a defendant are dismissed….” the court that issued the order shall send a copy to the sheriff of the originating county and the head of the facility, or provider of the outpatient competency restoration program. What is troubling is the next section (and note that all charges have been dismissed, thus terminating the court’s jurisdiction). “On receipt of the copy of the order, the facility or program shall discharge the defendant into the care of the sheriff or sheriff ’s deputy for transportation in the manner described by Article 46B.082.” However, art. 46B.082

Situs Class of Offense Commitment Period

Out-patient Class B 60 days

Class A 120 days

Felony 120 days

Jail-based Class B 60 days

Class A 60 days

Felony 120 days

In-patient Class B 60 days

Class A 60 days

Felony 120 days


contemplates return of the defendant to the court. In this circumstance, the charges are dismissed and the court’s jurisdiction is terminated.

Many sheriffs will suffer apoplexy when advised they are expected to transport a person across county lines – perhaps hundreds of miles distant --- with no charges pending, and lacking personal jurisdiction. Moreover, would a sheriff return a person some distance in their patrol car without restraints? And were the person returned on a Friday afternoon – when no court is open – the sheriff would have no grounds to book them back into the jail. Consequently, I would strongly encourage all courts and counsel to ensure that the defendant has been returned to the county of origin before charges are dismissed!

In the foregoing scenario, a person is likely to have charges dismissed because they are, or have, timed-out, i.e. have served that period of time in jail or in a facility which is equivalent to the maximum sentence he or she could have received had they been convicted on day one; cf. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 46B.009 and .0095. However, some will have restored, but many will remain incompetent. It is correct that in such circumstance, concerning persons remaining incompetent, the present statute (see art. 46B.151) permits the court to retain jurisdiction after dismissal for the specific purpose of (a) transferring the matter to a court with mental health jurisdiction, and (b) ordering the person to be held in jail – brief – “pending prompt initiation of civil commitment proceedings”, and pending further orders from the court having mental health jurisdiction. But absent a 46B.151 determination the issue is clouded.

Put simply, the wiser course is to ensure that the person is returned to the county of origin before all charges are dismissed.

Separation of Treatment and EducationArt. 46B.079(b)(1) and Art. 46B,0805 entitled “Competency Education Services” are reminiscent of the

description of a “camel as a horse designed by a committee”; for these sections separate two elements of competency restoration not so easily separated, namely clinical treatment and education.

Art. 46B.079(b)(1) provides:

(b) The head of the facility or jail-based competency restoration [or outpatient treatment] program provider shall promptly notify the court when the head of the facility or [outpatient treatment] program provider believes that:

(1) the defendant is clinically ready and can be safely transferred to a competency restoration program for education services but has not yet attained competency to stand trial;

Then in a new section art 46B.0805, it reads:

Art. 46B.0805. COMPETENCY RESTORATION EDUCATION SERVICES. (a) On notification from the head of a facility or a jail-based competency restoration program provider under Article 46B.079(b)(1), the court shall order the defendant to receive competency restoration education services in a jail-based competency restoration program or an outpatient competency restoration program, as appropriate and if available.

These two sections serve to separate clinical treatment from education services as applied to restoration services. It is presumed that persons will be “clinically ready” but lacking viz. the education necessary to effectuate restoration. In my experience this is highly unlikely to be the case. The standard for restoration is so low that once a person has any reasonable clinical stability they are restored. For example, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held


that a person with an IQ in the 60’s is competent. see Ex Parte Rodriguez, 164 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).3 Moreover, it requires little in the way of being “stable” – inasmuch as psychosis is not dispositive of competency. See Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), Battle v. U.S., 419 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2005), Medina v. Singletary, 59 F.3d 1095 (11. Cir. 1995).

In addition, if a person cannot learn, relatively easily, the cognitive features associated with competency, e.g. the purpose of a trial, roles of parties, nature of charges, possible penalties, etc. etc., then there is likely such a severe intellectual deficit that they are unlikely to be restored in the time frame available to the court.

It has been pointed out, however, that the concept involved wanting to have a tool in place for quick medical stabilization in the jail, and then a transfer to an outpatient treatment program with a residential component for any further “education” services, if needed. Of course, we need such programs to exist for this to be of any value.

Another issue, however, is that if a person is deemed clinically ready but in need of further education, he or she can only be send to a jail-based or outpatient program for the remainder of the time available on the restoration commitment. Given that no jail based programs now exist and, even in the future, few will be established due to the space, sound, and staffing requirements unavailable in modern jails, the odds of finding a suitable program with dispatch are few. Thus a person with, let us say, 40 days remaining, may wait an additional 60 days for a bed – during which the gains made in the restoration program may be lost if the person is not held in a well-structured mental health treatment program – not existing in virtually all jail settings. One of the few settings in which the act may be helpful is that wherein there is a facility with an attendant outpatient program – providing an opportunity for step-down care of persons whose acuity has improved markedly.

In most conditions, however, this is a provision that is likely to be problematic at best, and ineffective at worst.

Continuation of MedicationsAdditions to 46B.0825 will allow a sheriff to seek reimbursement for providing medications prescribed for

persons in restoration – though, to be sure, the sheriff is not responsible for providing unreimbursed medications. While sounding much like a not especially useful section, this addition does emphasize the necessity for continuing persons on medications prescribed during the course of treatment.

Court decision on restorationUpon a person having been returned from a facility or program, the court shall make its determination on the

issue of competency “not later than the 20th day after the date on which the court received the applicable notice under Article 46B.079, or not later than the fifth day after the date of the defendant’s return to court, whichever occurs first, regardless of whether a party object to the report…and the issue is set for hearing..” See Art. 46B.084(a-1)(1). Note that the facility’s opinion on restoration or lack thereof prevails and establishes a rebuttable presumption to the contrary; see Moralez v. State, 450 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2014). As well, a decision must be made – promptly, for allowing the defendant to languish with no decision on competency having been made, is improper. See Timmons v. State, 510 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2016).

Jail based competency restorationArt. 46B.090 is amended to authorize not only a jail based program created by the Tex. Dept. of Health & Human

Services, but art. 46B.091 adds a jail-based competency program administered by a county – or a group of counties. This statute requires at least one psychiatric physician, and other qualified mental health practitioners, providing the same number of hours of services as would be provided in an inpatient facility. As well, a psychiatrist or psychologist (as qualified under art. 46B.022) shall “conduct at least two full psychiatric or psychological evaluations


of the defendant during the period the defendant receives competency restoration services in the jail.

Unfortunately, the foregoing language does not distinguish between psychiatric or psychological evaluations and forensic evaluation for the purpose of ascertaining competency to stand trial – though these are quite different evaluations, requiring different consents, and with differing content.

The statute also requires operation in a “designated space that is separate from the space used for the general population of the jail” – which precludes establishing a program in virtually every jail in the state, of the 240 jails now extant – save for Lubbock County, which has a psychiatric unit within the jail itself.

One option, not mentioned statutorily, but which may be possible is that of a jailbased program in which the jail provides housing and daily transports the defendants to a separate facility, i.e. a mental health facility, wherein the sheriff retains care, custody and control, and provides deputies for security – much as would be provided were a defendant transferred temporarily to a local general hospital, yet not being subject to release.

Time frame for commitment to a jail-based programThere is some unclarity viz. the time frame for commitment to a jail-based program. First, consider the

language of art.46B.073 (italicized content is mine):

SECTION 14. Article 46B.073, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by amending Subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) and adding Subsection (f) to read as follows:

(b) For purposes of further examination and competency restoration services with [treatment toward] the specific objective of the defendant attaining competency to stand trial, the court shall commit a defendant described by Subsection (a) to a mental health facility, [or] residential care facility, or jail-based competency restoration program for the applicable period as follows:

(1) a period of not more than 60 days, if the defendant is charged with an offense punishable as a misdemeanor; or

(2) a period of not more than 120 days, if the defendant is charged with an offense punishable as a felony.

But, in art. 46B.090 and 46B.091 is stated as follows:

If a “defendant ordered to participate in the pilot program has not been restored to competency by the end of the 60th day after the date the defendant began to receive services [participate] in the pilot program:

(1) for a defendant charged with a felony, the defendant shall be transferred, without unnecessary delay and for the remainder of the period prescribed by Article 46B.073(b), to the first available facility that is appropriate for that defendant as provided by Article 46B.073(c)”

Thus, while a person charged with a felony may committed to a jail-based program for a total of 120 days (absent a 60 day extension), if the person is not restored in 60 days, then there is a mandatory transfer to “the first available facility that is appropriate…” – which would, then, be an inpatient facility. Note this would include only persons charged with a felony that was not an art. 17.032(a) or a Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(a)(1) offense – as these cases would have been committed to maximum security facility at the outset. The most problematic issue in this model is that an inpatient program may not be immediately, or even, readily available. In such cases, gains


may be lost when the person returns to the originating jail setting, absent the milieu and treatment available in a formal treatment program.

Changes to Mental Health CodeBackground: Defendants found incompetent and either unlikely to be restored, or not having been restored

after treatment, may be subject either to a dismissal and transfer to a court having mental health jurisdiction (see art. 46B.084(e) and (f)) or a civil commitment with charges pending.

SB 1326 changed one element in Tex. & Safety Code § 574.034 – which appertains to temporary court-ordered mental health services. It now reads:

(g) An order for temporary inpatient or outpatient mental health services shall state that treatment is authorized for not longer than 45 [90] days, except that the order may specify a period not to exceed 90 days if the judge finds that the longer period is necessary.

The presumptive period of a temporary order is – as of September 1, 2018 – for 45 days, though 90 days may be specified if the court finds that the longer period is necessary. No further standard is provided in the statute.

SummaryThe changes effectuated by SB 1326 are complicated and rife for error as applied. Consequently, both courts

and counsel are urged to read the statutes rather carefully as implementation begins.

1 This article This article first appeared in Voice for the Defense, Vol 46. No 9, November 2017 and is re-printed with permission.2 Brian D. Shannon, Prescribing a Balance: The Texas Legislative Responses to Sell v. United States, 41 St. Mary’s Law Journal 309-50 (2009),

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1556406.3 See also, Ex Parte Bobby Wayne Woods, 296 S.W.3d 587 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009), Ex Parte Eric

Dewayne Cathey, 451 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).


Legislative Update 85th R.S.Mena Ramon - General Counsel - Texas Office of Court Administration

Texas Judicial Council Resolutions

Judicial Council asked for legislative proposals from numerous entities in summer of 2016.

The Council passed 14 resolutions in October 2016 urging the Legislature to make changes to bail and pretrial practices, mental health, court security, court costs and fines and other matters important to the judiciary.

Texas Judicial Council Legislation

SB 42- Judge Julie Kocurek Judicial and Courthouse Security Act of 2017

Establish Director of Security and Emergency Preparedness at OCA;

Requires municipal judges and local administrative judges to establish court security committees;

Certification of court security personnel;

Amend statutes impacting judges’ personal security and privacy; and

Provide resources to DPS for personal security for judges, if necessary.

SB 667 – Guardianship Compliance Project Expansion

Expands pilot program statewide.

Requires Guardianship Compliance Specialists to provide additional resources to courts handling guardianship cases:

Review guardianship cases to identify reporting deficiencies by the guardian.

Audit annual accountings and report findings back to the court.

Work with courts to develop best practices in managing guardianship cases.

SB 1096 – Guardianship Registry

Authorizes the creation of a statewide guardianship registry available for query by law enforcement; and

Requires the Supreme Court to adopt rules requiring prospective guardians other than attorneys, corporate fiduciaries, and certified guardians, to receive training and undergo a criminal history background check in order to be appointed guardian.

SB 36 – Regulation of Guardianship Programs

Expands Judicial Branch Certification Commission’s authority to regulate guardianship programs.

OCA anticipates less than 30 programs will be registered with the commission.

HB 351/ SB 1913 – Increasing Compliance with Court Costs, Fines and Fees

Several statutory changes to improve the assessment and collection of criminal court costs including:

Requires judges handling cases in open court to inquire about a defendant’s ability to pay when imposing the sentence and to use existing tools of installment plans, community service, full or partial waiver, or any combination of those, if a defendant has an inability to pay in full;

Expands community service options a judge may impose;

Increases the minimum amount of credit for jail or community service from $50 to $100 for each day; and


Prohibits the posting of a monetary bail in a fine-only offense unless the defendant fails to appear and the judge finds that the defendant has the ability to post bail.

SB 1326 – Mental Health

Revises the process of gathering and assessing information about an arrestee who may have a mental illness in the magistration process;

Streamlines the competency restoration process; and

Allows counties to establish jail-based competency restoration programs.

SB 292 – Jail Diversion Grant Programs

Grant program for the purpose of reducing recidivism, arrest, and incarceration of individuals with mental illness.

Matching funds:

50 percent of the grant amount for county with a population of less than 250,000

100 percent of the grant amount for county with a population of 250,000 or more.

HB 34 – Timothy Cole Exoneration Review Commission

Electronically record interrogations in felony cases;

Regulations on jailhouse informant testimony;

Improve procedures and training associated with eyewitness identification; and

Crime scene investigation study by Texas Forensic Science Commission.

Judicial Council Legislation

SB 1329 – Oaths of Office

Requires oaths of office and anti-bribery statements for state officials appointed by the Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals or State Bar of Texas, as well as associate judges appointed for the Children’s Courts be filed with the Secretary of State.

New Courts

SB 1329 – Omnibus Courts Bill

453rd District Court in Hays County

458th District Court in Fort Bend County

459th District Court in Travis County –preference to Civil

460th District Court in Travis County – preference to Criminal

462nd District Court in Denton County

464th District Court in Hidalgo County

CCAL No. 6 in Fort Bend County

CCAL in Grimes County

CCAL No. 3 in Hays County


Court Operations

HB 1507 – New forms

Requires OCA to adopt a standardized form for courts to use in discharging a defendant after successful completion of the conditions of community supervision.

HB 3167 – Fewer Collections Programs

Increases the population threshold for counties required to have a local collection improvement program from 50,000 to 100,000.

SB 1124 – Forensic Science Commission attached to OCA

Transfers the administrative attachment of the Texas Forensic Science Commission from Sam Houston

SHB 214 – CCA Recordings

Requires the CCA to record audio and video of proceedings and publish on its Website.

SB 1911 – Self Help Resources

Requires OCA, with assistance from the Texas Access to Justice Commission, to designate a self-help website with information regarding lawyer referral services, references or links to Legal Aid offices, legal self-help centers, and the State Law Library.

HB 45 – Foreign Law Rules

Requires the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of evidence and procedure regarding the enforceability of certain foreign judgments and awards, and to provide judicial instruction addressing issues related to foreign law, foreign judgments, and foreign arbitration awards.

HB 3391 – Specialty Court for Public Safety Employees

Creates a specialty court, similar to a veterans court, for public safety employees such as peace officers, firefighters, detention officers, county jailers or EMS service employees who have been charged with a criminal offense due to job-related PTSD or other work-related mental health issue.

SB 527 – Defendant Payment for Appointed Counsel

Permits a court to require a defendant who was appointed counsel to repay the cost of legal services during the defendant’s sentence if the defendant becomes financially able to do so after giving notice and an opportunity for the defendant to provide relevant financial information to the court.

SB 1233/HB 1480 – Expands the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to allow the issuance of a writ against a judge of a statutory county court, a statutory probate court, or an associate judge of a district or county court appointed by a judge under Chapter 201 of the Family Code

Elections

HB 25 – Elimination of Straight Party Voting

Eliminates straight party voting for all races (including judicial races.) Effective Sept. 1, 2020.

SB 44 – Petitions Accompanying Applications for Election Ballots

Requires candidates for appellate justice, district judge, statutory county judge and justice of the peace in counties with a population over 1.5 million to get 250 signatures.

Requires candidates for the Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals to get 50 signatures.

The Texas Judicial Council/ Office of Court Administration Legislative Update is available at www.txcourts.gov


Basic requirements: Be a current member of the Texas Association for Court Administration

Skills Required: The ability to communicate by e-mail or telephone and the occasional ability to stand up in front of a crowd without passing out, stuttering, or turning beet red.

Duties:

Education Committee: Find and make contact with potential speakers, introduce speakers, suggest topics for future conference, work the registration desk, bring door prizes and help our Secretariat with Audio Visual set up during the conference.

Scholarship Committee: Help raise money for scholarships and prizes for the raffle during the conference, review scholarship applications to determine if the applicant qualifies for the scholarship, encourage your colleagues to apply for scholarships and work the scholarship table during the conference.

Membership Committee: Recruit new members, work the welcome reception for new members, keep track of membership numbers, help plan TACA events, award membership pins during the conference, help work the registration desk recommend and vote for the Member of the Year and the best part… you get to work with Jerome!!!

Publications Committee: Look for articles that will benefit court staff and submit them for The Journal, interview a TACA member or Judge with basic questions and writing an article, assisting at the conference, taking pictures, update information on the Facebook page.

Nominations Committee: Help hand out ballots at the registration desk, help pick up ballots and help oversee the election at the conference.

If you wish to apply, contact any of the board members and give them your name, phone number and e-mail address and which committee you would like to join.

TACA MembersCommittee Members Needed

INTRODUCING THE NEW SECRETARIATElizabeth Klawinsky

Elizabeth Klawinsky is a Program Specialist for the Correctional

Management Institute of Texas at Sam Houston State University.

She has been with the Correctional Management Institute

since February 2017. Some of her programs include the Annual

Leadership for Support Staff Conference, Juvenile Probation

Officer Trainings, and Foundation Skills for Trainers. She is also the

liaison for the Adult and Juvenile Resource Training Officers. She

graduated from Sam Houston State University with her Bachelor

of Science degree in 2015. Elizabeth lives in Huntsville Texas with

her husband Justin where she enjoys spending time with her family

and two dogs.


42nd Annual TACA Education Conference“Piecing Justice Together”

Conference DetailsOctober 2-5, 2018

Member Registration Fee: $350.00Registration Opens: June 1, 2018

OMNI San Antonio at the Colonnade9821 Colonnade BoulevardSan Antonio, Texas 78230

210.691.8888

*Rate based on current GSA Per Diem and is subject to change

Additional Information:Attire for the conference is business casual. Meeting rooms are often

cold, so please bring a jacket or sweater.

Smoking is permitted only in designated areas.

All electronic devices must be turned off during all meetings.

Registration Fee Includes:Up to 16 hours continuing education credit

All Course Material Morning & Afternoon Breaks 2 Lunches

Welcome Reception for all TACA Members

Room Rate:Rate Cut Off:Parking:Check In:Check Out:Airport Shuttle:

$124.00*08/29/2018Free Self Parking3:00 p.m.11:00 a.mComplimentary** Upon Availabilty


Advertise in the TA.e-A Journal

vertise w-ith us? Advertising Prices Quarter Page

Exposure of your company's products/services Per Issue $200 $450 to over soo TACA members including: 3 Issues

• Judges• Court Administrators 8 Coordinators Ball Page • Court Managers Per Issue

3 Issues $300 $750

Inside knowledge of upcoming events and conferences where eDlibitors are welcome

Additional insight into the field of Court Administration

Freedom to choose: • Ad size• Number of issues in which to advertise

(the Journal is published 3 times annually)

Advertisers should email high resolution {300 dpi) eps, tii, or pdp files to [email protected].

Full Page Per Issue 3 Issues

$500 $I200

A check made payable to the Texas Association oi Court Administration in the correct

amount should be mailed to the iollowing:

Tezas Association for Court Administration Sam Houston State Univeraity

Correctional Management Institute of Tezas George J. Beto Criminal Justice Center

Huntsville, Texas 7734I..Z296

For more iniormation contact: Dorlisa Patton

Publications Liaison (936) 560-7744

[email protected]

professionals managing texas courts vol. 46 no. 1 jan 2018 january .pdf · harris county dwi court...

Documents