volume 16 end of summer 2007 no. 5 - tmcec recorder/2007/nl8_07.pdf · volume 16 end of summer 2007...

VVVVVolume 16olume 16olume 16olume 16olume 16 End of Summer 2007End of Summer 2007End of Summer 2007End of Summer 2007End of Summer 2007 No. 5 No. 5 No. 5 No. 5 No. 5

©2007 Texas Municipal Courts Education Center, Austin. Funded by a grant from the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Domestic continued on page 10

I N S I D E T H I S I S S U E

Features

Celebrate Municipal Courts Week ....... 14Hate Crime Conundrum: Are They GoingUnpunished?by Lindsey Lautin ................................... 6In Appreciation ..................................... 12No More Best Practicesby Ingo Keilitz ...................................... 17OmniBase and Failure to Appearby Margaret Robbins .............................. 7Traffic Safety Awards ............................ 18

Columns

Academic Schedule ................................ 26Around the State .................................... 2Collections Corner .................................. 7Court Management .............................. 17From the Center ................................... 11From the General Counsel .................... 3Registration Form ................................ 27Training for Your Court ...................... 24

Driving continued on page 4

Driving AcrosDriving AcrosDriving AcrosDriving AcrosDriving Across the Bs the Bs the Bs the Bs the Borororororder:der:der:der:der:Driver’Driver’Driver’Driver’Driver’s Licenses and Financial Ress Licenses and Financial Ress Licenses and Financial Ress Licenses and Financial Ress Licenses and Financial Resppppponsibility Isonsibility Isonsibility Isonsibility Isonsibility Issued in Mesued in Mesued in Mesued in Mesued in Mexicoxicoxicoxicoxico

by Jessica Marsh, Legislative Law Clerk, TMCEC

Because of its shared border withMexico, Texas has a relatively highnumber of drivers that possess driver’slicenses and financial responsibilityfrom Mexico. Peace officers andcourts in Texas often encounter theseindividuals during routine traffic stops,and these stops present questions as towhether or not the Mexico driver’slicenses and financial responsibility arevalid in Texas.

The Validity of Driver’s LicensesIssued by Mexico

The United Nations Road Traffic Conven-tion and the Convention on the Regulationof Inter-American Automotive Traffic, bothof which are federal treaties, providethat a person with a valid driver’slicense that was issued by Mexico islegally able to drive in the State ofTexas without first obtaining a Texas

driver’s license. This privilege extendsfor a period of up to one year afterthe date of the person’s entry into theUnited States.1 State law, namelyprovisions in the Transportation andAdministrative Codes, also providesfor an individual with a driver’s licenseissued by another state or nation to begranted driving privileges in Texas.2

Domestic Violence:Firearm Admonishments inMisdemeanor Convictions

By Andria Brannon, Legislative Law Clerk, TMCEC

Family violence continues to be apersistent problem and an all-too-oftenlethal crime. Texas magistrates andmunicipal judges who serve on thefront lines of the judicial process knowthis from firsthand experience. Ac-cording to a recent Texas Departmentof Public Safety report, there were186,868 reported incidents of familyviolence in 2006.1 These incidentsinvolved more than 200,000 victimsand more than 197,000 offenders.2

By sheer numbers, this would be akinto all of the residents of Lubbockassaulting all of the residents of Irvingin the space of one year.3

Statistics show that while family

violence offenses typically fall intoseveral general categories includinghomicides, kidnappings and/orabductions, robberies, and forcible sexoffenses, an overwhelming number(96.7%) are assaults.4

Municipal courts are compelled toaddress the aftermath of highlyvolatile and emotionally chargedfamily assault incidents on a regularbasis. In the most recent session, theTexas Legislature made severalchanges to existing law and enactednew provisions related to familyviolence. A significant addition to theduties of municipal judges occurred

The Recorder End of Summer 2007

Texas Municipal CourtsEducation Center

1609 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 302Austin, Texas 78701

512/320-8274 or 800/252-3718Fax: 512/435-6118

Website: www.tmcec.com

Fair and Impartial Justice for All

FY07 TMCA/TMCEC OfficersPresident: Robin Ramsay, DentonPresident-Elect: Brian Holman, Lewisville1st V.P.: Robert Doty, Lubbock2nd V.P.: Ninfa Mares, Fort WorthSecretary: Leisa Hardin, CrowleyTreasurer: Robert C. Richter, Missouri CityPast-President: Steven Williamson, FortWorth

DirectorsGary Ellsworth, Spearman • StewartMilner, Arlington • C. Victor Lander, Dallas• Elaine Coffman, Athens • Regina Arditti,El Paso • Julian E. Weisler, II, Brenham •Walter Dick Kettler, Beverly Hills • DonnaStarkey, Alvin • Lester Rorick, Pasadena •Steven Kidder, Victoria

Staff• Hope Lochridge, Executive Director• Ryan Kellus Turner, General Counsel &

Director of Education• Margaret Robbins, Program Director• Meichihko Proctor, Program Attorney &

Deputy Counsel• Lois Wright, Program Attorney• Allison Attal, Program Coordinator• Patricia Russo, Program Assistant II• Margaret Danforth, Admin. Director• Herman Flores, Multimedia Specialist• Carrie Harper, Registration Coordinator• Shane Scribner, Research Assistant• Chris Kerfoot, Communications Assistant• Lisa Robinson, TxDOT Grant

Administrator

Published by the Texas Municipal CourtsEducation Center through a grant from theTexas Court of Criminal Appeals. Subscrip-tions are free to all municipal judges, clerks,prosecutors, and support personnel em-ployed by the municipal court. Others maypurchase an annual subscription for $50.

Articles and items of interest not otherwisecopyrighted may be reprinted with attributionas follows: “Reprinted from the The Re-corder: Journal of Texas Municipal Courtswith permission from the Texas MunicipalCourts Education Center.”

The views expressed are solely those of theauthors and are not necessarily those of theTMCA Board of Directors or the staff ofTMCEC.

AROUND THE STATEMargaret Will Be Missed!

Margaret Robbins is retiring as Program Director for the Texas MunicipalCourts Education Center on August 31, 2007, after 28 years of service in Texasmunicipal courts as a judge, clerk, or as a judicial educator working to improvethe administration of justice.

Margaret graduated from Anaconda High School in Anaconda, Montana in1965; and studied music and elementary education at Western Montana Collegein Dillon, Montana and at Harding University in Searcy, Arkansas, where shemarried her college sweetheart, Jesse Ennis Robbins Jr. on September 7, 1968.

In 1978, Margaret Robbins began her career in public service with the City ofCedar Park, a city she still calls home, first as an assistant tax assessor/collector,and subsequently as a police dispatcher and police secretary. In 1979, she becamethe city’s court clerk, and was appointed municipal judge in 1982.

In 1986, Judge Robbins was hired by the organization, then known as the TexasMunicipal Courts Training Center, to coordinate its court clerks program.During the last 22 years, through her dedicated work as a judicial educator andher love for local trial courts, she has earned a statewide reputation for herwealth of knowledge as it relates to the administration of municipal courts.“Her mind amazes me – she can recall the proper citations and provisions ofobscure statutes and detailed court costs with perfect recall,” commented LeisaHardin, Court Administrator for Crowley. To provide some comic relief toMargaret’s students who sometimes felt overwhelmed by the amount of infor-mation needed for a clerk to feel competent, the TMCEC staff even created astress ball imprinted with “I survived Margaret!”

During her tenure at the Texas Municipal Courts Education Center, MargaretRobbins has served as an author and editor of numerous publications and wasan essential leader in the creation and development of the Municipal CourtClerks Certification Program. “Margaret Robbins has played an influential roleduring her career in increasing the professionalism of tens of thousands ofjudges and court support personnel who, in turn, dedicate themselves to servingthe public’s interest,” said Robin A. Ramsay, President of the Texas MunicipalCourts Association and Education Center.

Margaret plans to spend time with her family: her son Jason Robbins (a Trooperwith the Texas Department of Public Safety); Rachel, her daughter-in-law, andher four grandchildren, Jacob, Emily, Joseph, and Jack. Margaret says, “Teachingpiano and art to my grandchildren will be my highest priority—after chocolate,of course.” Hope Lochridge, Executive Director of TMCEC, hopes thatMargaret will save some time to work with TMCEC as a consultant. “Margarethas earned the admiration and respect of her colleagues. We will miss her toomuch. I hope that she will stay involved.”

On May 25, 2007 the House of Representatives recognized Margaret’s years ofservice to Texas municipal courts. House Resolution 2475 was introduced byRepresentative Burt Solomons (District 65). A series of retirement celebrationswere also planned for Margaret at the TMCEC Legislative Updates in August, aswell as at the Annual Meeting of the Texas Municipal Courts Association in theDallas area (September 13-15, 2007).

End of Summer 2007 The Recorder

FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL Ryan Kellus Turner

It seems like this is the time of yearwhere I start figuring out either howlittle I know or how much I still haveto learn.

For instance, I just learned that in mostparts of the world “fall” is notnecessarily either the proper or synony-mous name of the season that followssummer.

The proper name in most Englishspeaking countries is “autumn.” Fall isconsidered to be a North AmericanEnglish derivative of autumn and is areference to the “fall of the leaves”that marks the changing of the season.While the terms are used interchange-ably in the United States, “fall” hasfallen by the wayside in most Englishspeaking parts of the world.

Though autumn does not begin untilSeptember 23, 2007, the season ofchange has already begun in courtsthroughout Texas as we get closer toSeptember 1, 2007, the day that mostnew legislation goes into effect.

Not Everything Changed

TMCEC just “brought into port” itstraveling road show known as Legisla-tive Update 2007. In three days and inthree cities, the Legislative Updatefaculty spoke to nearly 900 participants.Invariably participants come to theUpdate wanting to know what has orwhat is going to change. With suchchanges come new questions. That’sunderstandable.

The funny thing is that every two yearsas summer comes to a close, TMCECreceives a disproportionate number ofquestions about things that were notchanged by the Legislature. It’s for thisreason that I briefly want to discusstwo of the most frequently asked

Coming to Terms with the 80th Regular Legislaturequestions that fall into this category.

Question #1 – “Did the Legislature cutcommercial drivers any slack when it comes todeferred disposition or driving safety courses?”

The short answer to this in a singleword is “No.”

On January 24, 2007, RepresentativeHarold Dutton filed HB 801. This billwould have allowed holders ofcommercial driver’s licenses to beeligible for either deferred dispositionor a driving safety course as long as theCDL holder was not operating acommercial motor vehicle at the timeof the alleged offense. On February 7,2007, HB 801 was introduced andreferred to the House Committee onLaw Enforcement where it remainedwithout a hearing the rest of theSession.

Without belaboring that which wehave rehashed many times before,“zero tolerance” for holders ofcommercial driver’s licenses accused oftraffic offenses is not something uniqueto Texas law; it is mandated by federallaw. Texas may have been one of thelast states to comply with the federalmandate, but in light of the large sumof highway funds at risk, it is a safe betthat Texas will not change provisions inChapter 45 of the Code of CriminalProcedure to allow CDL holders toconceal, or “mask,” such violations.

For the same reason, there were noattempts this Session to enact a “pre-trial diversion” statute. If you recallduring the 79th Regular Legislature,such a bill was filed. However, to thesurprise of few, it suffered the samefate as HB 801.

I believe that since its enactment in2003, most judges, prosecutors, and

court personnel have come to under-stand and even accept the prohibitionof “masking” such violations. I amalso aware that many of you complywith the law but personally hope thatboth the Feds and the State will have achange of heart when it comes to thispublic policy. For those of like mind,there is good news.

Hope springs eternal… even inautumn.

Question #2 – “Did the Legislature close theloop-hole that allows CDL holders to “leapfrog” appeal to county court and receivedeferred adjudication?”

Once again, the answer is “No.”

To some readers this apparent over-sight is astonishing. Allow me toexplain.

Under federal regulations contained in49 CFR 384, a state is prohibited frommasking, deferring imposition ofjudgment, or allowing an individual toenter into a diversion program thatwould prevent the conviction of aperson holding a CDL for any viola-tion, in any type of motor vehicle, of astate or local traffic control law (excepta parking violation) from appearing onthe driver’s record.

A federal determination of non-compliance results in a state losing itsability to issue or renew CDLs for itsresidents. Unfortunately, that is just thetip of the iceberg. The Federal MotorCarrier Safety Improvement Act of1999 required all states to comply withrequirements of that act by September30, 2005, or face penalties to appor-tionments for the Surface Transporta-tion Program (STP), the NationalHighway System (NHS) program, and

Legislature continued on page 16


issued by a Mexican company is validin Texas. First, the court must deter-mine what type of financial responsi-bility is present: a surety bond; adeposit of cash or securities with thecomptroller; a deposit of cash or acashier’s check with a county judge; orself-insurance by a person with morethan 25 vehicles registered in his or hername. Second, if it is a motor vehicleliability insurance policy, the court willhave to determine where the car isregistered, because the TransportationCode does not allow a car registeredin Texas to be covered by an insurancepolicy issued by a Mexican company.Third, the court must determine if theinsurance policy meets the standardsset forth in the Transportation Code.These may be difficult points toascertain due to the possible expenseof researching insurance policies issuedby Mexican companies to determine ifthe policy conforms to the require-ments under the Transportation Code.

International Driving Permits andInternational Driver’s Licenses

A related question is whether or not aninternational driving permit (IDP) orinternational driver’s license (IDL) isrequired for a foreign citizen to drivein Texas and whether an IDP or IDLalone is enough to allow a foreigncitizen to drive in Texas.

An IDP is a booklet with a literaltranslation of the text from the IDPholder’s home country driver’s licenseinto 11 languages with a passport-stylephoto and other vital statistics foridentification purposes.9 In the UnitedStates only two agencies are authorizedto issue IDPs: the American Automo-bile Association and the AmericanAutomobile Touring Association.10 Inother countries, the IDP can be issuedby the agency responsible for issuingdriver’s licenses or by another agencydesignated for that purpose.11 It is veryimportant to note that, legally, there isno such thing as an internationaldriver’s license.

Driving continued from page 1

The Texas Transportation Code statesthat a nonresident who is older than 18years of age and holds a Class A or Bdriver’s license from his or her state orcountry of residence is not required tohold a similar license issued by Texas inorder to lawfully drive in Texas. Thisprovision applies to nonresidentswhose licenses are issued by a state orcountry that issues a Class A or Bdriver’s license that is similar to a TexasClass A or B driver’s license. It is also arequirement that the nonresident’s stateor country of residence recognizedriver’s licenses issued by Texas.3 Thiscodifies provisions of the UnitedNations Road Traffic Convention and theConvention on Inter-American AutomotiveTraffic.

In deciding whether a person is legallydriving with a Mexican driver’s licensethere are several determinations formunicipal courts to make. First, thecourt must determine the person’s age.If the person is under the age of 18,he or she may not drive in Texas usinga driver’s license issued by Mexico.Second, the court must determine howlong the individual has been driving inTexas with the Mexican driver’s license.A person may only use his or herMexican driver’s license in Texas for aperiod of one year; so if the personhas been driving here for more thanone year, he or she will need to obtaina Texas driver’s license, return toMexico, and re-enter Texas to begin anew one year period. Third, the courtmust determine whether the person isvisiting Texas from Mexico or hasrelocated here permanently. Bothmultilateral treaties deal with theconcept of international travel ratherthan immigration and the provisionsappear to extend only to peopletraveling in a foreign nation or visitinga foreign nation rather than peoplewho have moved or emigrated.

However, it may be difficult for courtsto make these determinations regard-

ing how long an individual has beendriving in Texas with a Mexicandriver’s license and the length of theperson’s stay. These questions touchupon immigration and citizenshipstatus issues unlikely to be freelydiscussed with the court.

The Validity of FinancialResponsibility Issued by a MexicanCompany

The Texas Transportation Codeprovides that all vehicles driven in theState of Texas are required to maintainproof of financial responsibility.4 Thefive acceptable types of financialresponsibility are: motor vehicle liabilityinsurance; a surety bond; a deposit ofcash or securities with the comptroller;a deposit of cash or a cashier’s checkwith a county judge; and self-insuranceby a person with more than 25 vehiclesregistered in his or her name.5 Financialresponsibility issued by a Mexicancompany can be valid in Texas if itmeets the requirements under theTransportation Code.

The Transportation Code provides forinsurance issued to a nonresident to beaccepted in Texas if the nonresidentfiles a certificate from an insurancecompany authorized to do business inthe state or country in which thevehicle is registered with the TexasDepartment of Public Safety (DPS).The statement must certify that there isa liability insurance policy in effect forthe nonresident.6 If the insurer is notauthorized to do business in Texas thecompany must also authorize DPS toaccept service of notice or process onits behalf in any action arising out of amotor vehicle accident that occurs inTexas; and agree in writing that itspolicy will be treated as conforming toTexas law.7 It is also a requirement thatthe nonresident’s vehicle not beregistered in Texas.8

There will be three findings to make indetermining if financial responsibilityin the form of an insurance policy


Exhibit A: A Valid International Driving Permit Exhibit B: Examples of Fake Permits

An IDP is valid for one year from thedate of issuance and must be used inconjunction with a valid driver’s licensefrom the holder’s country of resi-dence. In order to legally drive with anIDP, a person must also be carrying adriver’s license. 12 However, becauseMexican driver’s licenses themselvesare valid in the United States, a driverfrom Mexico is not required to carryan IDP to drive in Texas.

The U.S. State Department is report-ing that many websites are selling fakeIDPs to unsuspecting travelers. Thesefake IDPs often are hard, plastic cardssimilar in size and shape to a regulardriver’s license rather than the bookletformat of a valid IDP. These fakeIDPs often have “expiration” datesthat extend beyond the one yearlimitation set by the United NationsRoad Traffic Convention and are beingsold on the internet at prices substan-tially greater than the $15 USD costfor a real IDP.13 Also, the fake IDPsoften use the incorrect terminology of

“International Driver’s License.” Be onthe lookout for these IDPs in yourcourts, as they have been recentlyspotted by at least one municipal court.

Conclusion

While both driver’s licenses andfinancial responsibility issued in Mexicocan be valid in Texas it is dependentupon factors such as: the date thelicense holder entered the country,whether the license holder has immi-grated to Texas or is just visiting, andthe nature of the company issuing thefinancial responsibility. The determina-tions of whether or not an individual islawfully driving in Texas while holdinga Mexican driver’s license or financialresponsibility raise difficult questionsthat can bring up several sensitivesubjects relating to immigration,residency, and citizenship. While it maybe difficult, municipal courts will haveto make these determinations on aregular basis.

Jessica Marsh is a second year law student at

the University of Texas at Austin. She is anative of Chittenago, New York. She servedas a TMCEC legislative law clerk during thesummer of 2007.1 37 Tex.Admin.Code. § 15.91(d) (1)(2007). United Nations Convention on RoadTraffic Chapter 1 art. 1.2 (Sept. 19, 1949),1952 U.S.T. Lexis 558 at *3; See generallyConvention on the Regulation of Inter-AmericanAutomotive Traffic (Dec. 15, 1943), T.I.A.S.No. 1567.2 Tex. Transp. Code § 521.030; 37 T.A.C. §15.91(c) (2007).3 Tex. Transp. Code § 521.030.4 Tex. Transp. Code § 601.051.5 Id.; Tex. Transp. Code §§ 601.121-24.6 Tex. Transp. Code § 601.084 (a).7 Tex. Transp. Code § 601.084(c).8 Tex. Transp. Code § 601.168.9 1952 U.S.T. Lexis 558 at *89.10 See http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/safety/safety_1179.html.11 1952 U.S.T. Lexis 558 at *17.12 See http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/safety/safety_1179.html; 1952 U.S.T. Lexis558 at *17.13 See http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/safety/safety_1179.html.

Compare the valid International Driving Permit on the left, issued by AAA, to the examples of fake InternationalDriving Permits on the right. Note that a valid IDP closely resembles a passport, and is in booklet form.


Hate continued on page 21

Hate Crime Conundrum:AAAAAre There There There There They Gy Gy Gy Gy Going Unprosecuted?oing Unprosecuted?oing Unprosecuted?oing Unprosecuted?oing Unprosecuted?By Lindsey Lautin, Legislative Law Clerk, TMCEC

The hate crime is among the mostunique species in the taxonomy of thelegal world. While mens rea is a com-mon consideration in the prosecutionof almost all crimes, only the hatecrime requires a fact-finder to gofurther and try to determine thespecific motivation of the crime. Cer-tainly, some observers cringe at theidea of a court or jury attempting todetermine an individual’s motivations;others maintain that a modern andevolved society must recognize thatsome motivations are so vile that theydeserve special punishment.

Section 12.47 of the Texas Penal Codeand Article 42.014 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure codify the latterschool of thought, utilizing an en-hancement statute to increase punish-ment for hate crimes.1 If a judge entersan affirmative finding that the “thedefendant intentionally selected theperson against whom the offense wascommitted or intentionally selectedproperty damaged or affected as aresult of the offense because of thedefendant’s bias or prejudice…,” “thepunishment for the offense is increasedto the punishment prescribed for thenext highest category of offense.”2

There is one point about hate crimeprosecution that is of particularinterest to the municipal court system:the minimum severity of conviction fora successful prosecution of a hatecrime is a Class B misdemeanor,punishable with incarceration. Forinstance, an underlying Class C misde-meanor, such as criminal mischief(Texas Penal Code 28.03), is enhancedto a Class B misdemeanor if success-fully prosecuted as a hate crime. Sincemunicipal courts possess jurisdiction

over offenses that are Class C misde-meanors, an individual cannot receivethis harsher penalty for a hate crime ina municipal court.

The consequence—no doubt anunintended one—strips municipalcourts of jurisdiction of any crime thatis prosecuted using the hate crimesenhancement statute. As a result, if theprosecution desires to take advantageof the faster docket offered by themunicipal courts, it must abstain fromproceeding with a hate crime prosecu-tion. The resulting prosecutorialdecision whether to invoke the en-hancement statute is one that can onlybe made with an eye toward theoriginal intent of hate crime legislation.

The purpose served by hate crimelegislation is a multifaceted creature.However, three main views deservespecial attention.

The first purpose relates to the func-tion of the law to express and embodycertain social values. In the case ofhate crimes, society—through itscreation of the state—wishes toexpress that certain motivations areutterly unacceptable to society, and thusthe motivations deserve special punish-ment. The particular motivationscovered by the hate crimes legislationare those that revolve around an aspectof the victim’s biography, be it his orher race, gender, religion, ethnicity, age,or sexual orientation.

A second view of hate crime legisla-tion sees special prosecution as a meansof deterrence. It is a fundamentalprinciple of modern penal law that asufficiently stiff penalty will deter asignificant number of potential malfea-sances. All too often, however, such

deterrence is insufficient to overcomethe motivation granted by the poten-tial for personal gain or something assimple as a grudge. However, onemight note that, just as hate crimeprosecution is a unique creature, thehate crime itself is a unique creature: toqualify as a hate crime, the crime musthave been committed against anindividual as a result of antipathy for aparticular group. The statistics suggestthat there might be some validity tothis notion of deterrence. In 2005,there were 264 “hate crime incidents,”down 7% from 2004.3 If the num-bers continue to decrease, then itwould seem that there is a strongmotivation for the prosecution to seekthe higher penalties offered by thehate crimes enhancement statute.

In the third and final analysis of thepurpose of hate crime legislation, suchlaws can be viewed as providing thevictim with a greater sense of justice.

The question of the prosecution ofhate crimes in municipal court mustbe analyzed with respect to these threepurposes. The prosecution mustbalance the issue of whether thevictim is best served by a swifterpunishment in municipal court orwhether the victim is best served by apotentially heavier punishment due tothe enhancement statute. As withmany issues in the law, this is a ques-tion that must be determined on acase-by-case basis.

Lindsey Lautin is a second year law studentat the University of Texas at Austin. She isa native of Dallas, Texas. She served as aTMCEC legislative law clerk during thesummer of 2007.


OmniBase and Failure to AppearBy Margaret Robbins, Program Director, TMCEC

COLLECTIONS CORNER

The 74th Legislature amended theTexas Transportation Code addingChapter 706 to authorize the TexasDepartment of Public Safety (DPS) tocontract on or after September 1,1995 with political subdivisions todeny the renewal of an individual’sdriver license for failure to appear oncertain traffic violations. The 76thLegislature amended Chapter 706 toinclude all offenses, except for theoffense of failure to appear and theoffense of violate promise to appear.The 77th Legislature amended Chap-ter 706 to include offenses for whichan individual fails to pay or satisfy thejudgment of a court order in amanner ordered by the court. The78th Legislature amended Chapter 706again to include any offense that acourt has jurisdiction of under Chap-ter 4, Code of Criminal Procedure.This amendment became effectiveJune 18, 2003. Hence, Chapter 706applies to all offenses within themunicipal, justice of the peace, orcounty court’s jurisdiction, includingboth traffic and non-traffic violations.

The program under Chapter 706 iscalled the DPS Failure to AppearProgram (FTA Program). Thisprogram is ostensibly only for adultdefendants. Defendants who are underthe age of 17 are reported to DPS fordriver’s license suspension or denial ofissuance for failure to appear, failureto pay, or violation of a court orderby using DPS form DIC-81. Courtsshould keep in mind that defendantsunder the age of 17 who fail to pay orviolate a court order must be found incontempt before being reported toDPS. The order to suspend or deny

issuance of the driver’s license is asanction of contempt. If, however, ajuvenile defendant turns 17 before thecourt conducts the contempt hearingunder Article 45.050, the court mayreport the defendant under the DPSFailure to Appear Program.

The purpose of the FTA Program isto assist local governmental entities toenforce laws in their communities.DPS estimates that as few as 25percent of warrants issued are broughtto final disposition, which probablymeans that over one and three quartermillion offenders are ultimately notbrought to justice. This program wasdeveloped to help local governmentsenforce their warrants by creating adatabase of offenders who fail toappear in court or dispose of theircases in some manner. Currently, DPSestimates that between 95 and 98percent of the offenders submitted inthe program will comply. (Note:Chapter 706 does not require courts toissue warrants before submitting adefendant in the program.)

To implement the FTA Program, themunicipality must contract with DPS.There is no cost to the municipality,but the city must have a computer andhardware that meets certain require-ments, including access to the internet.The defendant must appear before theoriginating court for final dispositionof his or her case and pay a $30 fee tothe court for each offense submittedbefore the court may notify DPS torelease his or her driver’s license forrenewal.

A contract between DPS and amunicipality renews automatically on a

yearly basis, absent notification of non-renewal. Either party may terminatethe contract, however, by notifying theother in writing thirty days prior to theexpiration date of intentions not torenew the contract. After termination,the municipality has a continuingobligation to report final dispositionsand collect fees for all defendants stillin the system at the time of termina-tion.

Cities that have already contracted withDPS like the FTA Program because ofits limits to liability. Section 706.011provides that the State or cities maynot be sued or held liable based on anact or omission under the program,including the denial of renewal of adriver’s license. The DPS websiteshows that 641 cities and 218 countiesare participating in the program. It alsoshows that 5.4 million offenses havebeen entered into the database.

Section 706.008 provides authority forDPS to contract with a private vendorto implement Chapter 706, which DPSdid—OmniBase Services of Texas.Municipalities, however, contract withDPS to participate in the FTA pro-gram. OmniBase, however, providesthe necessary protocol for using thesoftware to the political subdivisions atno cost. The data collected byOmniBase from the courts is consid-ered confidential and can only be usedfor the purposes established in thecontract. It is OmniBase’s responsibilityto maintain its database accurately.OmniBase maintains records on eachdefendant after compliance for fiveyears and indefinitely on those who donot comply.


Besides the rules provided in Chapter706 of the Transportation Code forthe FTA program, DPS has createdadministrative rules for the program inthe Texas Administrative Code in Title37, Part 1, Chapter 15. These rulesshould be read in conjunction withChapter 706.

After a municipality contracts withDPS, regardless of how a charge isinitiated, whether by citation or bysworn complaint, before the court cansubmit a defendant into the DPSFailure to Appear system, the courtmust have a defendant’s driver’s licensenumber. For traffic offenses filed bycitation, the officer must have pro-vided the defendant with a writtenwarning telling the person that if he orshe fails to appear as provided by lawfor the prosecution of the offense orif the person fails to pay or satisfy ajudgment ordering the payment of afine and cost in the manner orderedby the court, the person may bedenied renewal of the person’s driver’slicense. This warning can be on thecitation or on a handout given to thedefendant by the peace officer.

The FTA Program does not require awarrant to be issued in response to aperson’s failure to appear. Whether apolitical subdivision issues a warrant ornot is not relevant to an offense beingaccepted into the FTA system. Also,there is no requirement to file theoffense of violation of promise toappear or the offense of failure toappear before submitting a defendantin the FTA Program. The court mayjust submit the original charge onwhich the defendant failed to appear.

In order to have a violator enteredinto the FTA program, the court mustelectronically send a report with thefollowing information:

• Name of the political subdivisionsubmitting the report;

• Defendant’s name and date ofbirth;

• Defendant’s Texas driver’s licensenumber (Texas identification cardnumber is unacceptable);

• Defendant’s address;• Applicable offense(s) and date(s);• Brief description of the alleged

violation;• Fine amount (includes costs and

fees);• Docket number and jurisdiction;• Statement that the person failed to

appear or failed to pay or satisfy ajudgment; and

• Date that the person failed toappear or failed to pay or satisfy ajudgment.

The $30.00 administrative fee shouldbe included in the reported court feesin order for OmniBase to provideaccurate information to the violator. Ifthe court is reporting a defendant whohas defaulted in payment of fine, thecourt may want to wait to report thedefendant until the 31st day after thejudgment to also include the $25 timepayment fee in the report. It is theresponsibility of the court to provideaccurate, complete, and non-duplica-tive information.

After OmniBase receives a submissionfrom a court, it mails a letter to thedefendant on modified DPS letter-head. The letter explains that thedefendant is being denied driver’slicense renewal for failing to appear incourt. The letter provides the name ofthe court, the offense date, docketnumber, outstanding offense(s)description, fines, costs, and feeamounts, the court’s address, andtelephone number. Also, OmniBasemust include a toll-free number toanswer and resolve questions fromdefendants.

When a defendant contacts a courtafter being submitted to the FTAProgram, the defendant still has theright to a jury trial. The court mayrequest the defendant post a bondwith the court to guarantee his or her

appearance at trial. If the defendantwants to renew his or her driver’slicense, the defendant must also pay thecourt a $30 fee.

In courts of non-record, defendantscan plead guilty or no contest andappeal the judgment to county court.If the defendant wants to renew his orher driver’s license, he or she must alsopay the $30 fee. If the defendant doesnot want to renew his or her driver’slicense, then the defendant can post theappeal bond with the court and appealwithout paying the $30 fee.

If a charge is dismissed, the defendantmust pay the $30 fee if the defendantwants to renew his or her driver’slicense. There are some exceptions tothis rule. They are found in the TexasAdministrative Code, Title 37, Part 1,Rule 15.119, which provides that if anoffense has a defense to the prosecu-tion, a person is considered acquittedupon proof of the defense. In thisinstance, the $30 would not becharged. Examples of such offensesare: failure to maintain financialresponsibility, failure to display driver’slicense, and failure to display certificateof inspection.

If a defendant is convicted of theoffense, the defendant is liable for the$30 cost. This cost is added to all theother costs, state and local, required tobe paid by defendants. The $30 feedoes not take precedence over theother costs and if the court takes apartial payment from the defendant,the amount must be prorated amountall the costs and not just to the $30.

If a defendant is unable to pay the fineand costs, the judge may requiredefendants to discharge them byperforming community service. The$30 may be discharged by performingcommunity service. If a defendant hasspent time in jail, Article 45.041 of theCode of Criminal Procedure requiresthe judge to give defendants jail creditto the fine and costs. Hence, the $30


may be discharged by jail credit.

If a defendant is acquitted of theunderlying charge, then the defendantdoes not owe the $30 fee and themunicipality does not have to pay anymoney to the State or the vendor. If acourt sends a report to OmniBase inerror, then no fee is required. Ifrecords are being destroyed in accor-dance with the municipality’s recordretention policy, then no fee is required.

After the $30 has been paid (whether itis by money, community service, or jailcredit) or the court has satisfied theindividual’s obligation in the case, thecourt is required to transmit toOmniBase within five business days thefollowing information:

• Name of defendant• Texas driver’s license number• Docket number• Plea• Disposition• Penalty

The $30.00 administrative fee appliesto each offense submitted by the court.Twenty dollars of each fee collectedmust be sent to the State Comptroller’soffice along with the other court costseach calendar quarter. The municipalitymust pay the OmniBase a fee of sixdollars for each offense that has beenreported. This payment must be madeno later than the last day of the monthfollowing the close of the calendarquarter in which the payment wasreceived by the municipality. Theremaining four dollars is retained bythe municipality.

If the defendant is acquitted of theunderlying charge, then no paymentmust be made to the State or toOmniBase. If the court does notreceive the court costs and fees inmoney because the defendant per-formed community service, then nopayment must be made to the State orOmniBase. If an individual is orderedto pay court costs and fees, but is not

assessed a fine, payment to OmniBaseis still required.

What happens at DPS? OmniBasetransmits the information to DPS by adata cartridge tape. The tape containsall entries as well as final dispositionsthat have occurred since the previouslydelivered tape. The data cartridge isdownloaded into the DPS mainframecomputer. After edits, DPS automati-cally turns on a FTA flag for appropri-ate driver records on all accepted data.Any record that contains erroneousdata is rejected and returned to thecourt for correction.

Then DPS sends the defendants a letterinstead of a driver license renewalnotice to inform them that they willnot be able to renew their driver’slicense. The letter provides a toll-freenumber for compliance informationand informs the defendant of theconsequences of driving while licenseinvalid (DWLI). (See TransportationCode §521.457.) The 80th LegislativeSession changed the penalties onDWLI. Offenses occurring September1, 2007, will be a Class C misde-meanor unless the suspension was theresult of driving while intoxicated, thenit is a Class B misdemeanor. If thedefendant has been previously con-victed of DWLI, the offense is a ClassA misdemeanor.

When a defendant who has beensubmitted to the FTA Program goesto a DPS driver’s license office torenew his or her driver’s license, thedefendant, after receiving notice of thedenial of renewal, will be issued a 60day temporary permit. The DPS clerkwill refer the defendant to OmniBase’stoll-free number if the defendant asksabout the outstanding charges againsthim or her.

When DPS headquarters in Austinreceives the renewal requests fromdefendants who are in the FTAProgram, DPS withholds their driver’slicenses from the manufacturing

process and sends another letter to thedefendants marked, “DENY RE-NEWAL LTR #2-FTA.” This letternot only tells defendants that theirlicense will not be renewed but alsothat their driving privileges will bedenied upon expiration of thetemporary permit.

It informs the defendant that uponcompliance, a driver license will beproduced and mailed.

After the court submits a compliancereport, DPS produces a driver licenseand notes on the defendant’s drivingrecord “COMPLIANCE RE-CEIVED-FTA”. The driver license isthen mailed to the defendant.

When non-complying defendants donot attempt to renew their license,including defendants who attempt torenew their license up to one yearprior to the expiration, upon 60 daysafter the expiration of the driverlicense or the issuance of a temporarypermit, whichever comes first, a thirdletter is sent to notify the defendantsthat they are officially denied renewalof their driver licenses. DPS updatesthe defendants’ driver records toreflect “DENY RENEWAL-FTA.”The defendants are then subject to theDWLI statutes while operating avehicle.

The FTA Program is an importanttool for municipalities to use toenforce compliance for defendantswho fail to appear or defendants whofail to comply with court orders andjudgments. Most cities do not have thepersonnel to constantly work cases ofdelinquent defendants because they aredealing daily with new cases. The FTAProgram notifies defendants that thereare consequences to their lack ofresponsibility of taking care of theircases in the court. This is a programthat each city should explore as anoptional enforcement tool.

For more information, go to www.omnibase.com or call 512.346.6511.


with the passage of SB 1470, whichrequires certain admonishments andnotifications to those defendants whoare accused or convicted of misde-meanor family violence.

Federal funding for family violenceprevention funnels to each statethrough the Violence Against WomenAct (VAWA). In 1994, the U. S.Congress enacted VAWA (18 U.S.C.A.§§ 2261 to 2266).5 This federal actwas designed to battle family violencefrom multiple angles, and includedprovisions for research and datacollection, education and prevention,direct assistance to victims, criminalprosecution, and punishment.

Initially, appropriations of $1.62billion were made to fund and sup-port shelters and services to victims, toprovide education to prosecutors andlaw enforcement, and to create anoffender database and a national toll-free domestic violence hotline.6

With the 2006 VAWA reauthorization,each state must certify that its judicialpolicies and practices include certainnotifications to family violence offend-ers.7 These admonitions include theinformation that a family violenceconviction – even at the misdemeanorlevel – creates the prohibition ofpossession of a firearm. This prohibi-tion also extends to those subject to afamily violence protective order.8Texas must include this admonishmentin its judicial policies and proceduresand make a certification to the federalgovernment no later than January 5,2008 that courts are complying, or theState stands to lose $7 million infederal funding for domestic violenceprograms.

To preserve current funding levels andcontinue the provision of domesticviolence services to Texans, SB 1470was passed by the Legislature andsigned into law by Governor Perry.

The bill, effective September 1, 2007,directs courts to create procedures tomeet the requirements under VAWAestablished by the U.S. Congress.Operationally, the result of SB 1470 isthat the Texas Code of CriminalProcedure is amended so that prior toaccepting a plea of guilty or nolocontendere in a family or domesticviolence case, the court must admonishthe defendant of certain facts. Specifi-cally, the court must inform thedefendant that it is unlawful for him orher to posses or transfer a firearm orammunition if the defendant is con-victed – and that this prohibition doesinclude misdemeanor convictionsfor family violence. Therefore, therequirement of the admonition doesapply to municipal courts and shouldbe integrated into the court’s proce-dures. Language related to the admon-ishment requirement can be found inthe newly amended Article 26.13(a)and Chapter 42 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure.

Ostensibly, should someone convictedof a family violence misdemeanorpossess or transfer a firearm, then theyare in violation of Texas Penal Code§46.04 (Unlawful Possession of aFirearm).9 There is, however, aproblem. Section 46.04 only speaks toClass A misdemeanors. While a broadinterpretation would include thelanguage and intent of the federal law,there seems to be a conflict of lawsbetween the state and federal measures.Specifically, the federal law states:

It shall be unlawful for any personwho is subject to a court order thatwas issued after a hearing of whichsuch person received actual notice,and at which such person had anopportunity to participate; restrainssuch person from harassing,stalking, or threatening an intimatepartner of such person or child ofsuch intimate partner or person, orengaging in other conduct thatwould place an intimate partner in

reasonable fear of bodily injury tothe partner or child; and includes afinding that such person representsa credible threat to the physicalsafety of such intimate partner orchild; or by its terms explicitlyprohibits the use, attempted use, orthreatened use of physical forceagainst such intimate partner orchild that would reasonably beexpected to cause bodily injury; orwho has been convicted in anycourt of a misdemeanor crimeof domestic violence, to ship ortransport in interstate or foreigncommerce, or possess in oraffecting commerce, any firearmor ammunition; or to receive anyfirearm or ammunition which hasbeen shipped or transported ininterstate or foreign commerce.10

Under the federal law, a crime isconsidered a domestic violencemisdemeanor (requiring the admonish-ment) if the crime can be defined as amisdemeanor under either federal orstate law and involves physical violenceor force, or includes threats made witha deadly weapon and it was commit-ted by a current or former spouse, aparent or guardian of the victim, aperson with whom the victim shares achild, a person living with the victim asa spouse, parent, or guardian; or aperson who has a similar relationshipwith a spouse, parent, or guardian ofthe victim.11

According to the federal law the statecrime does not have to actuallymention “domestic” or “family”violence in order for it to be consid-ered a domestic violence misdemeanorand for the federal firearm admonitionlaw to apply. However, in Texas theapplicable portion of the Penal Code§46.04 (Unlawful Possession of aFirearm) refers only to a prohibitionupon conviction of a Class A misde-meanor.

Domestic continued from page 1

Domestic continued on page 21


FROM THE CENTER

TTTTTranslated Formsranslated Formsranslated Formsranslated Formsranslated FormsVisit the TMCEC web site! TMCEC will soon postrevised forms that have been translated into Spanish. Thesemay be downloaded from the TMCEC website andadapted for use in your court (www.tmcec.com).

TMCEC TMCEC TMCEC TMCEC TMCEC Bench BookBench BookBench BookBench BookBench Book & & & & &Forms BookForms BookForms BookForms BookForms Book

TMCEC staff members will be revising and editing boththe TMCEC Bench Book and Forms Book during the fall of2007. If you have suggestions, please call (800.252.3718) oremail Ryan Turner ([email protected]), Meichihko Proctor([email protected]), or Lois Wright([email protected]). Both will be updated with recentchanges by the 80th Legislature and case law. The Centerseeks to improve on any checklists or forms that areinsufficient or flawed. Suggestions for new forms or newchecklists are also invited.

Code BCode BCode BCode BCode BooooooksoksoksoksoksJudges, watch for a copy of the Texas Criminal and TrafficLaw Manual: Judicial Edition in the mail in late September.The TMCEC Board of Directors voted to send one copyat grant expense to every municipal judge in the State. Ifyou do not receive your copy, please contact Chris Kerfootat TMCEC (800.252.3718 or [email protected]).

So Now You’re a JudgeSo Now You’re a JudgeSo Now You’re a JudgeSo Now You’re a JudgeSo Now You’re a JudgeTMCEC has prepared a pamphlet for new judges. A copywas recently sent to every judge appointed in FY 07. If youare an experienced judge and would like a copy, pleasecontact Chris Kerfoot at TMCEC (800.252.3718 [email protected]). The pamphlet has information onjudicial robes, oaths of office, gun laws, and so on.

Our AOur AOur AOur AOur ApppppologiesologiesologiesologiesologiesThe staff at TMCEC would like to apologize for any slowresponse, lost paperwork, or confusion created in FY 07 bythe new $50 TMCEC registration fee or $100 TMCA CLEfee. We truly underestimated how time consuming it wouldbe. We have now reorganized our staff, upgraded ourdatabase system, and pledge to provide you with quickerand more efficient processing of your registration formsand fees in FY 08. Thank you for your patience. In fact,we hope that all participants will be able to register onlineby mid-year. Stay tuned!

Judicial ResiJudicial ResiJudicial ResiJudicial ResiJudicial ResidencedencedencedencedenceRequirementsRequirementsRequirementsRequirementsRequirements

Each year TMCEC collects data from the judges’ andclerks’ attendance forms that helps us understand thestructure and organization of the municipal court system inTexas. Shown below are the responses from judges in theFY 07 TMCEC programs on the issue of whether the citycharter requires that the judge reside in the city. If there aresimilar questions that you would like asked, please emailyour questions to Hope Lochridge at TMCEC([email protected]) and we will consider adding them tothe FY 08 attendance form. Please help us collect this databy responding to the questions on your attendance formthat is turned in at the end of the seminar.

Does your city charter require that the judge residewithin the city?

Yes27430%

No42946%

Yes30%

No46%

No Response

24%

Save the date! May 21 - 23, 2008TMCEC Traffic Safety Conference

Irving, Texas!Municipal judges, clerks, and city officials are invited toattend. The preliminary agenda includes topics such asBlood Warrants, Booster Seats/Child Safety Seats, HowMunicipal Courts Can Make a Difference, Red Light Cameras& Enforcement, OmniBase Failure to Appear, Community orProblem Solving Courts, Aggressive Drivers, Young Drivers,DUI, Deferred Disposition, Role of Courts in City Govern-ment and much more.

www.tmcec.com


In AppreciationTMCEC wishes to extend a debt of gratitude to the faculty members and course directors who participated in FY07programs. Without the hard work and dedication of the following faculty members, TMCEC would not have been ableto make the year’s programs an overall success.

The Honorable Michael Acuna,Municipal Judge, Dallas

W. Clay Abbott, DWI ResourceProsecutor, TDCAA

Ilse Bailey, Assistant County Attorney,Kerr County

The Honorable Robert J. Barfield,Municipal Judge, Baytown, ElLago, Pasadena, and Prosecutor,Texas City

Lynn Bollish, Prosecutor, CarrolltonCathy Bradford, Commission

Counsel, State Commission onJudicial Conduct

Elaine Brown, Court Administrator,Katy

Charles Bubany, George MahonProfessor of Law, Texas TechUniversity of Law

The Honorable John Bull, MunicipalJudge, San Antonio

The Honorable Deanne Burnett,Municipal Judge, Carrollton andThe Colony

Israel Campos, Law EnforcementCoordinator, Texas MunicipalPolice Association

Debbie Carter, Public PolicyCoordinator, Texas Council onFamily Violence

The Honorable Robb Catalano,Municipal Judge, Fort Worth

The Honorable Mark Chambers,Municipal Judge, Trophy Club

Candace Chappell, Senior AssistantCity Attorney, Irving

The Honorable Carrie Chavez,Municipal Judge, Dallas

Deryl Corley, Court Administrator,Carrollton

Hilda P. Cuthbertson, CourtAdministrator, Bryan

Ed David, III, Chief Marshal,Baytown

Ray Dittrich, Law EnforcementCoordinator, Texas MunicipalPolice Association

Robert Doty, Municipal Judge,Lubbock

Russ Duncan, Assistant CollectionsManager, Office of CourtAdministration

The Honorable Gary Ellsworth,Municipal Judge, Gruver,Spearman, and Stratford

Carolyn Espeseth, Prosecutor, AustinDianna Faulkenberry, Court

Administrator, MansfieldRoss Fischer, City Attorney, SeguinThe Honorable Linda Frank, Chief

Prosecutor, Arlington andMunicipal Judge, Plano

Susie Garcia, Court Administrator, SanMarcos

Elisabeth Gazda, Prosecutor,Arlington

The Honorable Allen Gilbert,Municipal Judge, Mertzon and SanAngelo

Tracie Glaeser, Court Manager,Lewisville

Bonnie Goldstein, Municipal Judge,Cockrell Hill and Royce City, andProsecutor, McKinney

Stephen Goode, Professor, Universityof Texas School of Law

Adrianna Martinez-Goodland,Attorney at Law, Richardson

Julian Grant, Assistant AttorneyGeneral, Municipal AffairsDivision, Attorney General’sOffice

Yvonne Gunnlaugsson, LawEnforcement Coordinator, TexasMunicipal Police Association

Jacqueline Habersham, SeniorCommission Counsel, StateCommission on Judicial Conduct

Randy Harris, Chief City Marshal, SanAngelo

Leisa Hardin, Court Administrator,Crowley

The Honorable Sara Hartin, MunicipalJudge, New Braunfels

Rene Henry, Consultant, Hot SpringsVillage, Arkansas

Rosa Hernandez, Consultant, CedarCreek

Victor Hidalgo, Commission CounselInvestigator, State Commission onJudicial Conduct

The Honorable Vonciel Jones Hill,Dallas City Council District 5

The Honorable Brian Holman,Municipal Judge, LakewoodVillage and Lewisville

Noel Johnson, Law EnforcementCoordinator, Texas MunicipalPolice Association

Wanda Kelly, Court Administrator,Shenandoah

Andy Kerstens, Bailiff, WebsterKimberly Kierce, Court Administrator,

RichardsonLynda Kilgore, Court Administrator,

La PorteThe Honorable Deanie King,

Municipal Judge, Corpus ChristiAnne Kleinert, Public Policy

Coordinator, Texas Council onFamily Violence

Rhonda Kuehn, Court Administrator,Brenham


0 1 2 3 4 5

The Honorable Scott Kurth, MunicipalJudge, DeSoto, Glenn Heights,Grand Prairie, and Red Oak

The Honorable Antonio Kosta,Municipal Judge, Harker Heights

The Honorable C. Victor Lander,Municipal Judge, Dallas

James Lehman, Collections Specialist,Office of Court Administration

Dr. Richard Lewis, President, RoundTrip Consulting Associates

Hope Lochridge, Executive Director,TMCEC

Sgt. Mark Lockridge, WaxahachieDepartment of Public Safety

Sandra Mabbett, Judicial InformationAnalyst, Office of CourtAdministration

The Honorable Jan BlacklockMatthews, Municipal Judge,Lubbock

Lisa Mayo, Municipal Court Clerk,Roanoke

Suzanne McDaniel, Director, VictimAssistance and Communications,Crime Victim Services Division,Attorney General’s Office

The Honorable Stewart Milner,Municipal Judge, Arlington

Janie Moreno, Court Interpreter, DallasThe Honorable Marian Moseley,

Municipal Judge, CoppellPatricia Nasworthy, Assistant City

Attorney, Grand PrairieErik Nielsen, Director of Training,

TDCAATammy Odom, Municipal Court

Clerk, SweeneyJames Oswalt, Marshal, LubbockThe Honorable Ana Otero, Professor,

Thurgood Marshall School ofLaw

The Honorable Katherine Peake,Municipal Judge, Fredericksburg

Cpt. Jerome Powell, Department ofPublic Safety, Drivers LicenseDivision, Region 6

Meichihko Proctor, Program Attorneyand Deputy Counsel, TMCEC

Lawrence Provins, Assistant CityAttorney, Pearland

Sharon Pruitt, Assistant GeneralAttorney, Juvenile CriminalIntervention, Attorney General’sOffice

Mena Ramon, Assistant GeneralCounsel, Office of CourtAdministration

The Honorable Robin A. Ramsay,Municipal Judge, Denton, Krum,and Pilot Point

Pat Riffel, Court Administrator,Pearland

Margaret Robbins, Program Director,TMCEC

Jo Ann Sacharko, CourtAdministrator, Lancaster

Mary Sammon, Senior CourtManagement Consultant, NationalCenter for State Courts

Bill Schwettmann, Law EnforcementCoordinator, Texas MunicipalPolice Assocation

The Honorable Robin Smith,Municipal Judge, Midland

The Honorable Mitchell Solomon,Municipal Judge, Austin

Judy Spalding, Commission Counsel,State Commission on JudicialConduct

The Honorable Edward Spillane,Municipal Judge, College Station

Rebecca Stark, Court Administrator,Austin

Jennifer Sullivan, Court Administrator,Sealy

Karon Teague, GovernmentInformation Analyst, Texas StateLibrary

Zindia Thomas, Section Chief forCounty Affairs, Attorney General’sOffice

Lowell Thompson, District Attorney,Navarro County

Bonnie Townsend, CourtAdministrator, Lockhart

Gerry Tucker, Associate Vice Presidentof College of Human Resources,Austin Community College

Ryan K. Turner, General Counsel andDirector of Education, TMCEC

The Honorable John Vasquez,Municipal Judge, Austin

Bob Warneke, General Counsel, StateCommission on Judicial Conduct

Ronald White, City Marshal, WhiteSettlement

Seana Willing, Executive Director,State Commission on JudicialConduct

Curtis Wilson, Law EnforcementCoordinator, Texas MunicipalPolice Association

Lois Wright, Program Attorney,TMCEC

Organization 4.5Presentation 4.5

Materials 4.5Role of Staff 4.7

Interest 4.5Knowledge Increase 4.6

Relevance 4.5Facilities 4.3

FY06-07 Program Evaluation: Overall Average


Celebrate MunicipalCourts WeekNovember 5 - November 9, 2007

TexasMunicipal

CourtsEducation

Center

Join municipal courts, city councils, and communities throughout Texas in showing appreciation for thededicated municipal judges, court clerks, court administrators, bailiffs, and warrant officers who comprisethe Texas municipal courts from November 5 to November 9, 2007. Municipal Courts Week is a greattime to not only recognize how much municipal courts do, but to share with the public the important rolethat local courts and their personnel play in the criminal justice system and the larger community.

Your celebration of Municipal Courts Week should be as unique as your court, so be creativewith your activities. Here are some ideas that have been successful in the past:

Ask your city council to pass a local resolution (see next page).

Host a tour of your court for the city council and the public. While they are there, ask thepresiding judge to make a presentation or show the TMCEC video Role of the MunicipalCourt (available from TMCEC at no charge).

Hold a mock trial with a local high school government class acting as the key players.

Show the court staff appreciation by treating them to lunch or have a brown-bag lunchhour together.

Host a Q&A column in the newspaper to explain how your municipal court works.

Still need more ideas? Watch the TMCEC website, www.tmcec.com, for additional ways tocelebrate Municipal Courts Week.

Remember to start planning early and have fun!

We want to hear all about your celebration so please send copies of youractivities, calendar, and news clippings to TMCEC so that we can share them withother courts.


Local PROCLAMALocal PROCLAMALocal PROCLAMALocal PROCLAMALocal PROCLAMATIONTIONTIONTIONTION

Municipal Court Week

No No No No November 5-9, 2007vember 5-9, 2007vember 5-9, 2007vember 5-9, 2007vember 5-9, 2007

Whereas, the Municipal Court of __________, a time honored and vital part of local government, has existed since ______________,

Whereas more people, citizens and non-citizens alike, come in personal contact with municipal courts than all other Texas courts combined, and

Whereas public impression of the entire Texas judicial system is largely dependent upon the public’s experience in municipal court,

Whereas, Municipal Judges and court support personnel have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality, rendering equal service to all, and conform to the standards set by the Canons of Judicial Conduct,

Whereas, the Municipal Courts play a significant role in preserving the quality of life in Texas communities through the adjudication of traffic offenses, ensuring a high level of traffic safety for our citizens,

Whereas, the Municipal Courts serve as the local justice center for the enforcement of local ordinances and fine-only state offenses that protect the peace and dignity of our community,

Whereas, the Municipal Judges and Clerks continually strive to improve the administration of justice through participation in judicial education programs,seminars, workshops and the annual meetings of their state and local professional organizations.

Therefore, it is most appropriate that we recognize the accomplishments of the _______________ Municipal Court, and salute its critical role in preserving public safety, protecting the quality of life in our community, and deterring future criminal behavior,

Now, I _______________________, Mayor of the City of _____________, do recognize the week of November 5-9, 2007, as Municipal Court Week, and further extend appreciation to all _______________ Municipal Judges and court support personnel for the vital services they perform and their exemplary dedication to our community. I call upon all residents of ___________ to join with the City Council in recognizing the vital service they perform and their exemplary dedication to the communities they represent.

ON this day ______ of _________________, 2007.

____________________, Mayor

____________________, Attest


Legislature continued from page 3

the Interstate Maintenance (IM)program made available under federalauthorization acts. Penalties incurredequate to five percent loss of fundsfrom each identified program duringthe first year and 10 percent for eachsubsequent year. Lost funds, evenupon compliance, are unrecoverable.

According to the Legislative BudgetBoard, in 2008 alone, the estimatedloss of federal funding and stategeneral revenue resulting from non-compliance could total $207 million.

While the Legislature has compliedwith the federal mandate by prohibit-ing holders of CDLs accused oftraffic offenses from being eligible foreither deferred disposition or adriving safety course, there appears tobe an oversight that debatably allowsCDL holders to obscure their trafficviolations. The “loop hole” as it hascome to be known in local trialcourts, involves de novo appeals tocounty court.

Most municipal courts and all justicecourts are non-record courts. Thismeans that with or without having atrial a defendant may appeal a judg-ment of guilt to county court wherethe matter is prosecuted as if thematter had originally commenced incounty court. County courts, unlikemunicipal and justice courts, are notgoverned by Chapter 45 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure. While countycourts are presumably as familiar withthe applicable federal regulations asmunicipal and justice courts, there isnothing in Chapter 42 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure which is compa-rable to the express prohibitionscontained in Chapter 45. Conse-quently, there is nothing expresslyprohibiting county courts fromgranting deferred adjudication (Article42.12, Code of Criminal Procedure).

Herein lies the inequity and potentialcalamity when it comes to CDL

holders who appeal their trafficviolations to county court. While in theAugust 2002 issue of this publication, Idescribed the differences betweendeferred disposition and deferredadjudication, it appears that both areequally prohibited by the federalregulations relating to CDL holders.

The Legislature is either unaware ofthe loop hole or knows something thatis not widely understood by the rest ofus. During the last two Sessions, therewere rumors in Austin that the loophole was going to be closed. It wasn’t.

Hopefully, the Office of CourtAdministration and the Texas JudicialCouncil will now examine the issue.

Upon determining that there is anactual problem, the solution is an easyone. Make the provisions of Article42.111 of the Code of CriminalProcedure mandatory in all casesappealed from either a municipal orjustice court and duplicate the languageof Article 45.051(f), Code of CriminalProcedure into Article 42.12, Code ofCriminal Procedure.

All Laws Do Not Take EffectSeptember 1 (Even When They SayThey Do)

While it would be nice to see oneSession conclude without an increase incourt costs, in comparison to pastsessions, municipal courts came outrelatively unscathed. SB 600 increasedthe judicial support fee from $4 to $6.HB 1267 creates a fee for support ofindigent defense, a new $2 court costfor criminal offenses other thanoffense involving pedestrians orparking of a motor vehicle. Finally,HB 1623 creates a wide array ofcompliance dismissal fees.

Contrary to the express language ofthese three pieces of legislation, thecourt costs and fees imposed by themtake effect January 1, 2008 (notSeptember 1, 2007 or October 1,2007). Please be advised that Section51.607 of the Government Code

provides that any new or increased feeor court cost collected locally from aparty to a civil case or a defendant in acriminal case, or a fee or charge forservices or expenses of a publicofficial, does not become effectiveuntil the next January 1 after the lawtakes effect.

The collectively memory of theLegislature must be short. They seemwithout fail to create new court costswithout apparent reference or consid-eration of Section 51.607. Conse-quently, many publications incorrectlystate the effective date of new courtcosts.

The rub this Session has to do withcompliance dismissals. While Section51.607 prohibits collection of relatedfees until January 1, 2008, it presum-ably has no implications on a court’sability to dismiss certain cases uponproof of remedy or compliance (HB1623’s effective date is September 1,2007). If such is the case, courts canbegin dismissal compliances in Sep-tember but will not collect fees untilJanuary 1 (which, by the way, isnine days after the conclusion ofautumn).

CTC10October 2-4, 2007

Tampa Convention Center,Florida

The National Center for State Courtswill offer its 10th National CourtTechnology Conference in Tampa,Florida in October 2007. Participantswill be exposed to the latest andgreatest court technology offered.For more information, call888.609.4023 or go towww.ctc10.org.


Wherever you look, you see best practices. Sounds like a bitof wisdom from Yogi Berra, doesn’t it?

We have best practices for appellate courts and for prob-lem-solving courts, for racial fairness, for reducing familyviolence, for collection of traffic fines, for electronicdocument digital discovery, for human resource manage-ment, for ensuring public trust and confidence and, seem-ingly, for everything in court policy and operations underthe sun. Even though I’m guilty of using the term in thepast, to put it bluntly, I’m tired of best practices and would liketo see the concept replaced with evidence-based best practicesor simply evidence-based practices. And here’s why.

I’m sure that serious policymakers associate the concept ofbest practices with empirical evidence to back up the word“best” – the National Center for State Courts, for example,provides information on “proven best practices.” But that’snot the way the concept is typically used and understood.Instead, best practices seem to be things that courts do thatthey are proud of, that experts want them to do, that havegotten some good press, that have attracted the attention ofa critical mass of court managers, and so on. I would callthese “interesting practices,” “intriguing practices,” “promis-ing practices” and maybe, “practices-you-might-want-to-see-in-person-if-the-weather-is-right,” but not “best practices.”There’s nothing wrong with these things, but they are rarelybased on valid and reliable evidence that they really work.And there are so many best practices claimed by so manypeople, probably because the criteria for introducing themare low and vague. “He that is everywhere is nowhere,” saidThomas Fuller, the 15th century English preacher andhistorian who had the wit of Yogi Berra.

In a 2006 Public Management Report (Vol. 3, No. 11), BobBehn, a lecturer at Harvard University’s School of Govern-ment, takes it to another level. If, as Ralph Waldo Emersonsaid, “consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” then“best practice” is the refuge of unimaginative ones, writesBehn. Why are public managers so obsessed with somethingthat someone else has labeled “best practice”? Because,writes Behn, if they discover a “best practice,” then they canstop thinking. By adopting a “best practice,” public manag-

ers conveniently avoid the hard work of figuring outwhether the identified practice actually will work in theirorganizations. A manager need not be too discriminatingor too careful worrying whether the practices will providesome “operational nutrition” or merely “institutionalheartburn.” He or she can simply choose from a longmenu of best practices what is personally appetizing. Itsimply is the “best,” they confidently assure themselvesand others. Who will challenge the unnamed managementgurus, asks Behn, who have certified the practice as“best”?

There is a better way to get to what works; performancemeasurement. Among the top reasons for doing courtperformance measurement is that it helps to identifyevidence-based based practices for increasing court users’perception of courtesy and respect paid to them by thecourt.

Here’s a suggested definition: Evidence-based practices areprograms, strategies, or procedures for which there isdemonstrable evidence that their use produces desirableperformance outputs and outcomes. More generally,evidence-based court improvement practice is a systematicprocess for using performance measurement results – aswell as that of research and program evaluation – for courtimprovement.

Article reprinted with permission. Ingo Keilitz writes a blog,Made2Measure (http://made2measure.blogspot.com/), from whichthis article is adapted. Article also published in Court Communique,a newsletter of the National Association for Court Management,Vol. 8, No. 1, 2007 (www.nacmnet.org).

COURT MANAGEMENT

No More Best PracticesBy Ingo Keilitz, Of Counsel in Performance Measurement, National Center for State Courts


Municipal Traffic Safety InitiativesTraffic Safety Awards

Judging Committee and How Entries are Judged:A panel of judges made up of TMCEC staff and boardmembers will review each application and assign pointsbased on the materials submitted. After judging, the scoreswill be averaged and a final score assigned. There may becategories where no awards will be presented due to a lack of entries.

Applicants will be judged on the basis of what their court isdoing in terms of public outreach in their community toincrease traffic safety while deceasing traffic crashes, trafficfatalities, juvenile DUI, child safety seat offenses, red lightrunning, and other traffic related offenses. It may be helpfulto review “What Can You Do” on page 19 of this publica-tion.

Section I: A maximum of 50 points can be awarded.

What are you currently doing or planning to do toaddress traffic safety? Please provide a written report thatis no longer than five pages in length. This may includedetails regarding, but not limited to: monthly or regulararticles in local publications; sponsorship of mock trials;community outreach; distribution of written materials andpamphlets; creative sentencing; bilingual programs andinitiatives on traffic safety; adoption of the national and stateprograms such as Click It or Ticket; web-pages addressingtraffic safety; presentations to local civic groups and organi-zations; interaction with youth; outreach with repeat offend-ers; and community partnerships. Court programs may berepresented in conjunction with city departments, localschools, civic groups, and other community programs.

Section II: A maximum of 30 points can be awarded.

Attachments/Samples. Seeing is believing. Show ussamples or digital photos of your materials. This mayinclude, but is not limited to: copies (these will not be returned)of photos, news articles, press releases, materials youdistribute, copies of your web-pages, flyers, and letters ofsupport.

Section III: A maximum of 20 points can be awarded.

Neatness, organization of materials, and followingsubmission guidelines.

Purpose:To recognize those who work in cities that have madeoutstanding contributions to their community in an effort toincrease traffic safety. This competition is a friendly way formunicipalities to increase their attention to quality of lifethrough traffic safety activities. Successful programs will beshared across the state. Each submission will be recognized.

Eligibility:Any municipal court in the State of Texas. Entries may besubmitted on behalf of the court by the following: Judge,Court Clerk, Deputy Court Clerk, Court Manager, CourtAdministrator, Bailiff, Marshal, Warrant Officer, CityManager, City Councilperson, Law Enforcement Represen-tative, or a Community Member.

Awards:Award recipients will be honored at the Texas MunicipalCourts Education Center (TMCEC) Traffic Safety Confer-ence that will be held on May 21-23, 2008 at the OmniMandalay Hotel at Los Colinas in Irving, Texas.

Nine (9) awards will be given:

• Two (2) in the large volume courts, serving populations of150,000 or more;

• Three (3) in the medium volume courts, servingpopulations between 30,000 and 149,999; and

• Four (4) in the small volume courts, serving populationsbelow 30,000.

Award recipients receive for two municipal court represen-tatives, complimentary conference registration; travel to andfrom the Traffic Safety Conference to include airfare ormileage that is within state guidelines, two night’s accommo-dations at the beautiful Omni Mandalay Hotel and mostmeals and refreshments.

Honorable Mentions:If there are a number of applications that are reviewed anddeemed outstanding and innovative, at the discretion ofTMCEC, honorable mentions may be selected.

Honorable mentions will be provided airfare or mileagethat is within state fiscal guidelines to attend the TrafficSafety Conference and will be recognized at the TrafficSafety Conference.


Traffic law enforcement benefits can gofar beyond the traffic stop!

What Can You Do?

• Get involved• Add traffic safety materials to your city’s and court’s

web-sites• Host a warrant round-up with nearby cities• Invite school groups into your court• Start a proactive fine collection program• Recognize situations where a “fine is not fine”• Join the TMCEC listserv on traffic safety• Approve adequate funding, staff, and support for

your municipal court• Speak to local civic groups on the importance of

traffic safety• Build community partnerships• Ask law enforcement officers and prosecutors to

work together to identify at-risk drivers in yourcommunity

• Create meaningful sentencing alternatives for repeatoffenders, especially juveniles and minors usingdeferred disposition

• At the close of a trial after sentencing, remind jurorsand court observers of the importance ofcompliance with traffic laws

• Adopt a seat belt policy for all city employees• Participate annually in Municipal Court Week

General Tips on a Winning Submission:

• First impressions count. A neat, well-organizedsubmission that is easy to understand during the judgingmakes big difference.

• Make sure that all of the information you want thejudges to see is securely attached.

Entry Rules:

• • • • • Three copies of the application packet must besubmitted.

• Provide a completed application packet that includesthe application form.

• All typed pages should be 1.5 or double spaced,printed single-sided in at least a font size of 12, excluded:attachments and samples do not have to follow these guidelines.

• Each application packet cannot contain more thanthirty pages or documents, including attachments,pictures, and supporting documentation. You mayinclude letters of support as long as you do not exceedpage limitations. If, for example, you create a four pagehandout on Juvenile DUI to distribute to your localschools, this will count as one document.

• Applications are divided into three (3) categories:

1. Large Volume Courts are those serving populations of150,000 or more;

2. Medium Volume Courts are those serving populationsbetween 30,000 and 149,999; and

3. Low Volume Courts are those serving populations below30,000.

• Please provide copies only, no originals, as yoursubmission will not be returned.

• No late submissions will be considered.

Deadline:Entries must be postmarked no later thanThursday, January 31, 2008.

Send applications to:

TMCEC – Traffic Safety AwardsAttn: Lisa Robinson, CFLETxDOT Traffic Safety Grant Administrator1609 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 302Austin, TX 78701

Presentation:Award recipients and honorable mention winners will benotified by February 29, 2008 and will be honored duringthe Traffic Safety Conference to be held May 21-23, 2008at the Omni Mandalay Hotel at Los Colinas in Irving,Texas.

Successful Programs:Information submitted will be compiled and sharedstatewide for community networking, collaboration, andexamples of best practices.

For more information, please contact Lisa R. Robinson, CFLE,TxDOT Traffic Safety Grant Administrator, at 512/320-8274or [email protected]


Municipal Traffic Safety Initiatives

TMCEC Traffic Safety Award ApplicationDeadline: January 31, 2008 (postmarked)

Please print all information as you would like to appear on the award

Name of Person Submitting & Position: ____________________________________

Court Nominated: _____________________________________________________

Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________

City: ______________________________________ Zip Code: _________________

Telephone number: (____) ______-_______ Email address: ____________________

Category (please check one):___________ Large Volume Court: serving populations of 150,000 or more___________ Medium Volume Court: serving populations between 30,000 and 149,999___________ Low Volume Court: serving populations below 30,000

Judge’s Signature: ____________________________________

DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA:

Section I: Written Report: Maximum of 50 points: __________

Section II: Attachments/Samples: Maximum of 30 points: __________

Section III: Neatness, Organization of Materials,& Following Submission Guidelines: Maximum of 20 points: __________

Total Points Awarded: __________

Notes: __________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________


Need More Training?Judges and clerks often report on TMCEC evaluations that they would likeadditional judicial education. Did you know that you can access thewebinars online? Go to www.tmcec.com/webinar.html. On this web page,there are audio files containing the presentations. These may be listened toonline or downloaded to your computer or personal digital assistant. Also,the handouts, PowerPoint presentations, and forms are included. Thesematerials are usually posted five days after the “live” program. Although“live” programs offer MCLE and certification credit, the post-eventviewing does not.

Sample programs from the last two years are listed below:

• Bond Forfeitures• Diversity• DSC and Deferred• Dismissals• Juveniles Now Adults• Enforcement and Collections• Juvenile FTA vs. Failure to Pay• Points and Surcharges: Driver Responsibility• Blood Warrants in DWI Cases• Ethics: Dealing with Attorneys in Courts• Criminal Law Basics: Hearsay

Hate continued from page 6

1 Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Art. 42.014; Tex.Penal Code §12.47.2 Id.3 Crime Reports: 2005-2006, TexasDepartment of Public Safety, available athttp://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/05/cit05ch6.pdf.

A further point of confusion is thatthe apparent time constraints on thisprohibition do not seem to fullyaddress the range of misdemeanorfamily violence convictions. In TexasPenal Code §22.01(Assault), the lawprovides that a person who has beenconvicted of an assaultive offense,punishable as a Class A misdemeanorand involving a member of theperson’s family or household, com-mits a new offense if the personpossesses a firearm before the fifthanniversary of the later of: (1) thedate of the person’s release fromconfinement following conviction ofthe misdemeanor; or (2) the date ofthe person’s release from communitysupervision following conviction ofthe misdemeanor. 12

It would seem from a plain-languagestatutory interpretation of this sectionthat after the five-year period, theperson convicted of misdemeanorfamily violence (assault) may againpossess and/or transport a firearm.No further legislative guidance is givenas to how long the prohibition existsin Class B and Class C misdemeanorfamily violence convictions. Againgoing to a plain-language reading ofthe federal law, which would includeall misdemeanors, the five-yearlimitation seems to apply.

In a state with as deeply-rooted gunpossession traditions as Texas, familyviolence defendants and defenseattorneys will surely have issue with thelimitation on this right to possess andtransfer a firearm. That the Legisla-ture did not fully contemplate therange of offenses for which this willapply will be problematic. However,municipal courts have the opportunityto establish procedures which willcover all of the proverbial bases byproviding the admonition in the broadphrasing of the federal law. Byfollowing the federal law and enforc-ing its state counterpart, municipalcourts also have the chance to create

greater environments of safety for themore than 200,000 Texans who arevictimized by family violence eachyear.

Andria Brannon is a third year law studentat St. Mary’s Law School in San Antonio.Prior to law school she was the CorporateSponsorship Director for Children’s MedicalCenter of Dallas. She previously worked asthe Community Development Director forNew Beginning Center, Inc. in Garland,Texas. She is a native of Vernon, Texas.She served as a TMCEC legislative lawclerk during the summer of 2007.1 Texas Department of Public Safety –Uniform Crime Reporting Section, Annualreport of 2006 UCR Data Collection: Crimein Texas 2006 at 5 (2006), available at http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/public_information/2006CIT.pdf.2 Id.3 See 200 Census: Population of TexasCities Arranged in Descending Order,

Domestic continued from page 10 available at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/popcity32000.4 Supra n. 1 at 6.5 Sharon M. Grosfeld, Protecting Victims ofDomestic Violence, 38-JUN Md. B.J. 25, 29(2005).6 Id.7 18 U.S.C.A. §922(g)(8) and (9), West 2006.8 Id.9 Tex. Pen Code § 46.04.10 Supra, n. 7. (emphasis added).11 See http://www.womenslaw.org/TX/TX_gun.htm#8.12 Tex. Pen Code §22.01.


TMCEC 2006-2007Program Evaluation




Relevance 4.5Facilities 4

12-Hour Clerks





32-Hour New Clerks

SCALE1 - Poor2 - Fair3 - Adequate4 - Good5 - Excellent





12-Hour Judges





32-Hour New Judges


















Court Administrators





Court Interpreters

Bailiff and Warrant Officers Prosecutors

Low Volume





Legislative Update


TRAINING FOR YOUR COURT

TMCEC New Clerk 32-hour ProgramSeptember 24-28, 2007Omni Southpark AustinNew clerks who have never attended the TMCEC 32-hourprogram are invited to register for the September 24-28,2007 program to be held in Austin at the Omni SouthparkHotel. The program provides an overview of the work ofthe municipal clerk. To register, see the information foundon page 25 of this journal. The registration fee is $50. Foradditional information, contact Lois Wright [email protected] or call 800.252.3718.

TMCEC Court Interpreter I & II ProgramsOctober 29, 2007Omni Southpark AustinLicensed court interpreters who work full time in municipalcourts in Texas are encouraged to register for the TMCECCourt Interpreter I and II programs to be held in Austin onOctober 29, 2007. The registration fee is $50.

Court interpreters provide an essential connection betweenthe justice system and foreign language speakers, as well asthe hearing and language impaired. According to the TexasDepartment of Licensing & Regulation (TDLR), all licensedcourt interpreters are now required to display proof thatthey have attended eight hours of continuing education inorder to renew their licenses. Two hours must be dedicatedto ethics, while the remaining six hours may be taken in oneor more of the following subjects:

• Laws and rules affecting the practice of a licensedcourt interpreter;

• Ethics;• Business practices; and• Practice topics; e.g., etiquette, modes, vocabulary,

technology, transcription, translation, grammar andspelling, and voice training.

To address this need, TMCEC has designed an approvedconference exclusively for licensed court interpreters whowork full-time in a municipal court, either on a contract,hourly, or salaried basis. There will be courses gearedtoward all levels of experience, from an introduction to theprofession, laws governing court interpreters, to a mocktrial with simultaneous Spanish interpretation. This confer-ence is not a preparatory course for unlicensed interpretersseeking to sit for the exam.

TMCEC requires a signature authorizing attendance on the

registration form from the municipal judge in whosecourtroom the licensed court interpreter works.

Questions about TDLR and the status of pending creditsshould be addressed to: Texas Department of Licensingand Regulation, P.O. Box 12157, Austin, Texas 78711; 800-803-9202; or [email protected].

NCSC/ICM Managing Financial ResourcesJanuary 7-9, 2008Omni Southpark AustinFor the fourth year, TMCEC will offer a three-day pro-gram in cooperation with the National Center for StateCourts (NCSC) and Institute for Court Management (ICM)in Williamsburg, Virginia. The topic of this year’s pogramwill be Managing Financial Resources and will be led by Dr.John Hudsik of Michigan State University.

Participants will learn how to improve and defend theircourt’s budget and resources in an economic climate wherecourts are competing with other agencies for scarce re-sources. Attention will be given to understanding the balancebetween judicial independence and fiscal responsibility, andlearning practical steps courts can take during difficult fiscaltimes. The course seeks to recognize current and emergingtrends in budget practices impacting your court’s operations.

Course participants will engage in discussions and exercisesdesigned to develop a managerial approach to the budgetand budget justification process. Topics to be addressedinclude:

• The judicial branch position in the governmentalbudget process;

• The locus of government responsibility for financingcourts;

• Responsibility for budget policy, budget creation, andbudget management;

• Budgeting in a cutback mode;• Dealing with volatile or expansive items in the court’s

budget; and the relationship between performance andaccess to resources.

To register, please complete the registration form found onpage 27 of this journal. Space is limited; priority will begiven to those who have participated in the past and thenon a first-come-first-served basis. The registration fee isonly $50, although if the program was taken at the NCSCheadquarters in Virginia, the tuition is typically over $800.


REGISTRAREGISTRAREGISTRAREGISTRAREGISTRATION FORM TION FORM TION FORM TION FORM TION FORM TMCEC computer data is updated from the information you provide. Please print legibly and fill out form completely.(Please print legibly): Last Name: __________________________________ First Name : _____________________________ MI: __________Names also known by: ________________________________________________________________________ Female/Male: ____________Position held: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________Date appointed/Hired/Elected:____________ Years experience: ________ Emergency contact:_____________________________________

HOUSING INFORMATIONTMCEC will make all hotel reservations from the information you provide on this form. TMCEC will pay for a single occupancy room atall seminars (four nights at the 32-hour seminars). To share with another participant, you must indicate that person’s name on this form.

I need a private, single-occupancy room.I need a room shared with a seminar participant. [Please indicate roommate by entering seminar participant’s name:________________________________________________________________ (Room will have 2 double beds.)]I need a private double-occupancy room, but I’ll be sharing with a guest. [I will pay additional cost, if any, per night]I will require: 1 king bed 2 double bedsI do not need a room at the seminar.

Arrival date (Class begins at 1:00 p.m. on 9/24/07): _________________________________ Smoker Non-Smoker

Municipal Court of: _______________________________________________________ Email Address: _____________________________Court Mailing Address: __________________________________________ City: ____________________________ Zip: ________________Office Telephone #: __________________________________________ Court #: _____________________ FAX: _____________________Primary City Served: __________________________________________ Other Cities Served: ______________________________________STATUS (Check all that apply):

Full Time Part Time Court Administrator Court Clerk Deputy Court Clerk Other:

I certify that I am currently serving as a municipal court clerk in the State of Texas. I agree that I will be responsible for any costs incurred if I do notcancel five (5) working days prior to the conference. I will cancel by calling the Center. If I must cancel on the day before the seminar due to anemergency, I will call the TMCEC registration desk at the conference site. If I am a “no show”, TMCEC reserves the right to invoice me ormy city for meal expenses, course materials and, if applicable, housing (approximately $385). I understand that I will be responsible forthe housing expense if I do not cancel or use my room. If I have requested a room, I certify that I live at least 30 miles or 30 minutes driving timefrom the conference site. Payment is due with registration form. A $50 registration fee is required. Only checks and credit card paymentsare accepted. Payment due with registration form.

Participant Signature ______________________________________________________________ Date ______________________________

PAYMENT INFORMATION Check Enclosed (Make checks payable to TMCEC.) Credit Card (Complete the following; $2.00 will be added for each registration made with credit card payment.)

Credit Card Registration: (Please indicate clearly if combining registration forms with a single payment.)Credit Card Number Expiration Date

Credit card type: ________________________________ _________________ MasterCard Name as it appears on card (print clearly): _____________________________________________ Visa Authorized Signature: _____________________________________________

Return to TMCEC, 1609 Shoal Creek Boulevard #302, Austin, TX 78701. Fax registration forms with credit card information to 512/435-6118.

TMCEC Presents: 32-Hour New Clerks ConferenceOmni Southpark Hotel Austin, September 24 - 28, 2007

Many cities are unaware that municipal court clerks are court officers and must observe the same standards of fidelity anddiligence that the Code of Judicial Conduct requires of a judge. Since the clerk’s actions can and do bear directly on propercourt operations, court clerks should understand the differences between judicial and ministerial duties. If a clerk oversteps thebounds of his or her authority, the clerk, judge, and city may be subject to liability. This program will help clerks perform theirjobs properly and more effectively and accurately.Only new court clerks or court clerks who have never attended a TMCEC seminar are eligible to attend.

SEMINAR: The cost to attend is $50. The seminar will be conducted at the Omni Southpark Hotel located at 4140 Governor’sRow. It begins Monday, September 24 and concludes Friday, September 28. Registration begins on Monday at 10:00 a.m.Class begins at 1:00 p.m. on Monday and concludes on Friday at 12:00 p.m.HOTEL REGISTRATION: The Center pays the entire cost of the room for the nights of 9/24, 9/25, 9/26, and 9/27. Youare responsible for any incidentals (telephone calls, rooms service, movies, etc.). You must live at least 30 miles from the seminarsite to request a room.MEALS: While you are attending the seminar, the Center provides some of your meals. On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday,breakfast and lunch are provided. On Friday, only breakfast is provided. Guests are not allowed to join seminar participants atTMCEC-sponsored meals or sessions.


Conference Date(s) City Hotel Information

32-Hour New Clerks Conference September 24-28, 2007 Austin Omni Hotel Southpark4140 Governor’s Row, Austin, TX

12-Hour Regional Clerks Conference October 8-10, 2007 Tyler Holiday Inn Select Tyler5701 South Broadway, Tyler, TX

12-Hour Regional Judges Conference October 10-12, 2007 Tyler Holiday Inn Select Tyler5701 South Broadway, Tyler, TX

8-Hour Court Interpreters I Conference October 29, 2007* Austin Omni Hotel Southpark4140 Governor’s Row, Austin, TX

8-Hour Court Interpreters II Conference October 29, 2007* Austin Omni Hotel Southpark4140 Governor’s Row, Austin, TX

12-Hour Regional Judges and Clerks Conferences November 14-16, 2007 Austin Omni Hotel Southpark4140 Governor’s Row, Austin, TX

32-Hour New Judges and Clerks Conferences December 3-7, 2007 Austin Omni Hotel Southpark4140 Governor’s Row, Austin, TX

19-Hour Court Administrator Special Topic: January 7-9, 2008* Austin Omni Hotel SouthparkICM: Managing Financial Resources 4140 Governor’s Row, Austin, TX

12-Hour Regional Judges and Clerks January 14-16, 2008 San Antonio Omni San Antonio HotelConferences 9821 Colonnade Blvd., San Antonio, TX

12-Hour Bailiffs/Warrant Officers and January 20-22, 2008 San Antonio Crowne Plaza RiverwalkProsecutors Conferences 111 E. Pecan Street, San Antonio, TX

Texas Assoc. of Counties: Courts & TBD Austin TBDLocal Government Technology Conference

24-Hour Level III Assessment Clinic February 1-3, 2008* Austin Marriott Courtyard Downtown300 East 4th Street, Austin, TX

12-Hour Regional Judges and Clerks February 3-5, 2008 Fort Worth Doral Tesoro Hotel and Golf ClubConferences (Alliance) 3300 Championship Pkwy, Ft. Worth, TX

12-Hour Regional Judges and Clerks February 24-26, 2008 Galveston San Luis ResortConferences 5222 Seawall Blvd., Galveston, TX

12-Hour Regional Judges and Prosecutors March 16-18, 2008 Houston Omni Houston Hotel Conferences 4 Riverway, Houston, TX

12-Hour Judges and Clerks Low Volume Seminar March 24-26, 2008* Corpus Christi Omni Corpus Christi Bayfront900 N. Shoreline Blvd, Corpus Christi, TX

12-Hour Regional Judges and Clerks Conferences April 8-10, 2008 Lubbock Holiday Inn Park Plaza3201 South Loop 289, Lubbock, TX

12-Hour Judges and Clerks Low Volume Seminar April 13-15, 2008* Horseshoe Bay Horseshoe Bay Resort Marriott200 Hi Circle North, Horseshoe Bay, TX

12-Hour Regional Clerks Conference April-29- May 1st, 2008 S. Padre Island Radisson Resort South Padre Island500 Padre Blvd., South Padre Island, TX

12-Hour Regional Judges Conference (Attorneys) May 4-6, 2008 S. Padre Island Radisson Resort South Padre Island500 Padre Blvd., South Padre Island, TX

12-Hour Regional Judges Conference May 6-8, 2008 S. Padre Island Radisson Resort South Padre Island(Non-Attorneys) 500 Padre Blvd., South Padre Island, TX

14.5-Hour Judges, Clerks, and City Officials Traffic May 21-23, 2008 Irving Omni Mandalay Hotel at Las ColinasSafety Conference 221 East Las Colinas Blvd., Irving. TX

8-Hour Court Interpreters I Conference June 2, 2008* Irving Omni Mandalay Hotel at Las Colinas221 East Las Colinas Blvd., Irving. TX

8-Hour Court Interpreters II Conference June 2, 2008* Irving Omni Mandalay Hotel at Las Colinas221 East Las Colinas Blvd., Irving. TX

12-Hour Regional Judges and Clerks Conferences June 18-20, 2008 El Paso Camino Real Hotel101 S El Paso Street, El Paso, TX

12-Hour Bailiff/WO and Court Administrator June 30- July 2, 2008 Dallas Omni Dallas Park WestConferences 1590 LBJ Freeway, Dallas, TX

32-Hour New Judges and Clerks Conferences July 7-11, 2008 Austin Doubletree Hotel6505 IH 35 North, Austin, TX

2007-2008 TMCEC Academic Schedule At-A-Glance

*An asterisk indicates that there is no pre-conference, but housing is provided the night before the date shown. At all other conferences there is an optional pre-conference.


TEXAS MUNICIPAL COURTS EDUCATION CENTER Conference Date: _______________________________________________2008 REGISTRATION FORM Conference Site: ______________________________________________

Check one: Non-Attorney Judge ($50 fee) Clerk/Court Administrator ($50 fee) Prosecutor not seeking CLE credit ($250) Attorney Judge not seeking CLE credit ($50) Bailiff/Warrant Officer* ($50 fee) Prosecutor seeking CLE credit ($350) Attorney Judge seeking CLE credit ($150) Licensed Court Interpreter* ($50 fee) Prosecutor not seeking CLE/no room ($100 fee) Traffic Safety Conference-Judges & Clerks ($50) Assessment Clinic ($100 fee) Prosecutor seeking CLE credit/no room ($200)

By choosing TMCEC as your CLE provider, attorney-judges and prosecutors help TMCA pay for expenses not covered by the Court of Criminal Appealsgrant. Your voluntary support is appreciated. (For more information, see the TMCEC Academic Schedule).

Name (please print legibly): Last Name: ________________________________ First Name: __________________ MI: _________Names you prefer to be called (if different): __________________________________________________________ Female MalePosition held: ____________________________ Date appointed/Hired/Elected: ___________________ Years experience: ________Emergency contact: ____________________________________________________________________________________________

HOUSING INFORMATIONTMCEC will make all hotel reservations from the information you provide on this form. TMCEC will pay for a single occupancy room atall seminars: four nights at the 32-hour seminars, three nights at the 24-hour seminars/assessment clinics, two nights at the 12-hour seminars, andone night at the 8-hour court interpreters seminar. To share with another seminar participant, you must indicate that person’s name on this form.

I need a private, single-occupancy room.I need a room shared with a seminar participant. [Please indicate roommate by entering seminar participant’s name:________________________________________________________________ (Room will have 2 double beds.)]I need a private double-occupancy room, but I’ll be sharing with a guest. [I will pay additional cost, if any, per night]I will require: 1 king bed 2 double bedsI do not need a room at the seminar.

Arrival date: _______________________________________________________ Smoker Non-Smoker

Municipal Court of: _______________________________________________________ Email Address: _____________________________Court Mailing Address: __________________________________________ City: ____________________________ Zip: ________________Office Telephone #: __________________________________________ Court #: _____________________ FAX: _____________________Primary City Served: __________________________________________ Other Cities Served: ______________________________________

STATUS (Check all that apply): Full Time Part Time Attorney Non-Attorney Presiding Judge Associate/Alternate Judge Justice of the Peace Mayor (ex officio Judge) Court Administrator Court Clerk Deputy Court Clerk Other: ___________________ Bailiff/Warrant Officer/Marshal* Prosecutor Licensed Court Interpreter**Bailiffs/Warrant Officers/Marshals/Court Interpreters: Municipal judge’s signature required to attend Bailiff/Warrant Officer/Marshal/Court Interpreter programs.Judge’s Signature: __________________________________________________ Date: ______________________Municipal Court of: _______________________________________________________________________

I certify that I am currently serving as a municipal judge, prosecutor, or court support personnel in the State of Texas. I agree that I will be responsible forany costs incurred if I do not cancel five working days prior to the conference. I will first try to cancel by calling the TMCEC office in Austin. If I mustcancel on the day before or day of the seminar due to an emergency, I will call the TMCEC registration desk at the conference site IF I have been unable toreach a staff member at the TMCEC office in Austin. If I do not attend the program, TMCEC reserves the right to invoice me or my city for mealexpenses, course materials and, if applicable, housing ($85 plus tax per night). I understand that I will be responsible for the housing expense if I do notcancel or use my room. If I have requested a room, I certify that I live at least 30 miles or 30 minutes driving time from the conference site. Participantsin the Assessment Clinics must cancel in writing two weeks prior to the seminar to receive a refund. Payment is due with the registration form.Registration shall be confirmed only upon receipt of registration form and payment. ________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Participant Signature (May only be signed by participant) Date

PAYMENT INFORMATION: Check Enclosed (Make checks payable to TMCEC.) Credit Card (Complete the following. $2.00 will be added for each payment made by credit card.)

Credit Card Payment: (Please indicate clearly if combining registration forms with a single payment.) Credit Card Number Expiration Date

Credit card type: ________________________________________ ___________ MasterCard Visa Name as it appears on card (print clearly): _________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

Authorized Signature

Please return completed form with payment to TMCEC at 1609 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 302, Austin, TX 78701, or fax to 512.435.6118.


TEXAS MUNICIPAL COURTSEDUCATION CENTER

1609 SHOAL CREEK BLVD., SUITE 302AUSTIN, TX 78701www.tmcec.com

TMCEC MISSIONSTATEMENT

To provide high quality judicialeducation, technical assistanceand the necessary resource ma-terial to assist municipal courtjudges, court support personneland prosecutors in obtaining andmaintaining professional compe-tence.

Change Service Requested

Presorted StandardU.S. Postage

PAIDAustin, Texas

Permit No. 114

Deadline for 2007 Texas Judicial System Annual Report

In order to capture your court’s data for the 2007 Texas Judicial System Annual Report, the Office of Court Administration(OCA) must receive your municipal court monthly activity reports for state fiscal year 2007 (September 1, 2006 throughAugust 31, 2007) by October 5, 2007.

All municipal courts must submit a monthly court activity report to OCA, even if the court has no activity for themonth.

The monthly court activity report collects information needed by the Legislature to make decisions regarding the jurisdic-tion, structure, and needs of the court system. The information is also used by many other entities or individuals: theComptroller’s Office, the Legislative Budget Board, the Department of Public Safety, local judges, city councils, local andstate auditors, the media (especially local newspapers), the Texas Municipal Courts Education Center, research or specialinterest groups, universities (professors and students), attorneys, and members of the general public. Reports from Septem-ber 1992 to the present are available to the public live on our website at http://www.dm.courts.state.tx.us/oca/reportselection.aspx.

Please call Sandra Mabbett, Judicial Information Specialist, at (512) 463-1640 if you need assistance with or have questionsabout the monthly reports.

volume 16 end of summer 2007 no. 5 - tmcec recorder/2007/nl8_07.pdf · volume 16 end of summer 2007...

Documents