volume 9 august 2000 no. 5 - tmcec :: home · giving warnings, and setting bail. finding probable...

©2000 Texas Municipal Courts Education Center, Austin. Funded by a grant from the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Volume 9Volume 9Volume 9Volume 9Volume 9 AUGUST 2000AUGUST 2000AUGUST 2000AUGUST 2000AUGUST 2000 No. 5No. 5No. 5No. 5No. 5

I N S I D E T H I S I S S U EArticles:Magistration Under Art. 15.17, CCPby W. Clay Abbott ............................ 1Election and Jury Punishment inMunicipal and Justice Courtsby Ryan Kellus Turner .......................... 3Prejudgment Jail Creditby W. Clay Abbott ............................... 4Rule 12 Access to Court Recordsby Margaret McGloin Bennett ............. 7Magistrate’s Commitment Form ...... 8Article 15.17(b) Form ................... 9

Columns:Around the State ............................. 2For Your Court ............................. 10From the Center ........................... 14

MAGISTRATIONUNDER ARTICLE

15.17, C.C.P.By W. Clay Abbott

TMCEC General Counsel

(This article should be considered asupplement to the very inclusive anddefinitive treatment of 15.17 hearingsfound in chapter 2 of the TMCEC BenchBook, version 3)

Many municipal courts are called onto perform the magisterial functionsrequired under Art. 15.17 of the TexasCode of Criminal Procedure. Byperforming these important functionsin the higher-grade misdemeanors andfelony cases, the court is exposed tomany new legal and non-legal issues.The municipal judge acting as amagistrate under Art. 15.17 needs aclear knowledge of the law as well as amutually comfortable relationshipwith district and county judges,sheriffs, prosecutors, and defensecounsel.

“Magistration” is a term not found inthe Code of Criminal Procedure orelsewhere in the law. This process isalso incorrectly referred to as an“arraignment.” The terms “initialappearance” or “probable cause hear-ing” are more appropriate but areseldom used. Art. 15.17(a) requires anofficer making an arrest to “withoutunnecessary delay take the person

arrested … before some magistrate ofthe county where the accused wasarrested.” Art. 14.06 C.C.P. requiresthat officers making arrests withoutwarrants follow the dictates of Art.15.17. Municipal judges are magis-trates as defined by Art. 2.09 C.C.P.

The duties imposed on the magistrateby Art. 15.17 can be broken into threecategories: finding probable cause,giving warnings, and setting bail.

Finding Probable Cause

Texas courts have defined probablecause in much the same terms as theU.S. Supreme Court. Probable cause isa practical common sense determina-tion after a consideration of all thefacts under oath. Illinois v. Gates, 462U.S. 213 (1983); Eisenhauer v. State,754 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. Crim. App.1988). It is a standard below “beyonda reasonable doubt” but constitutesmore than a “hunch” or speculation.To justify a finding of probable cause,the sworn testimony or sworn affidavitmust be more than merely the recita-tion of the elements of the offense. ExParte Garza, 547 S.W.2d 271 (Tex.Crim. App. 1977). The sworn facts setforth in testimony or by affidavit mustallow the magistrate to make anindependent review and determinationof probable cause. Art. 1, section 11,Texas Constitution.

If a magistrate fails to find that prob-able cause exists from the evidencepresented or is presented insufficientsworn evidence to make that finding,

the magistrate should order thedefendant released. In such a case,lowering the bond amount or grantinga personal recognizance bond isinappropriate. Without probablecause, the defendant cannot be held orrequired to make or agree to the termsof a bond.

The determination of probable cause isa magisterial function similar toissuing search warrants and is ex partein nature. Although Art. 15.17 doesnot mention probable cause determi-nations, appellate courts have heldthat the 15.17 “magistration” shouldinclude an independent judicialdetermination of probable cause tocontinue detention or require present-ment of bond. Sanders v. City ofHouston, 543 F. Supp. 694 (S.D. Tex.1982) affirmed 741 F.2d 1379 (5th

MAGISTRATION continued on Page 4

Municipal Court Recorder August 2000

Texas Municipal CourtsEducation Center

1601 Rio Grande, Suite 550Austin, Texas 78701

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

Web page: http://www.tmcec.com

TMCA OfficersPresident: Edwin L. Presley, BenbrookPresident-Elect: Glenn Phillips, Kilgore1st V.P.: Joe Pirtle, Seabrook2nd V.P.: Dan Weathers, PasadenaSecretary: Vicki Gerhardt, New LondonTreasurer: Robert C. Richter, Missouri CityPast Pres.: Stella Ortiz Kyle, San Antonio

DirectorsRobert Doty, Lubbock . Steve Williamson,Fort Worth . Mike O’Neal, Dallas . PatsyHaynes, Kilgore . Sharon Hatten, Midland. Evelyn McKee, Austin . Quentin Porter,San Antonio . Timothy Fox, Brazoria .Hector Hernandez, Houston . BarbaraSudhoff, Corpus Christi

StaffHope Lochridge, Executive DirectorW. Clay Abbott, General CounselRyan Kellus Turner, Program AttorneyMargaret Robbins, Program DirectorMargaret Danforth, Admin. AssistantPatricia Russo, Program AssistantRey Guzman, Multimedia SpecialistBeatrice Flores, Registration Coordinator

Published by the Texas Municipal CourtsEducation Center through a grant from theTexas Court of Criminal Appeals. Subscrip-tions are free to all municipal court judges,clerks, prosecutors, and office personnelemployed by the municipal court.

Articles and items of interest not otherwisecopyrighted may be reprinted withattribution as follows: “Reprinted from TheMunicipal Court Recorder with permis-sion of the Texas Municipal Court Educa-tion Center.”

The views expressed are solely those ofthe authors and are not those of theTMCA Board of Directors or the staff ofthe Texas Municipal Courts EducationCenter.

AAAAAROUNDROUNDROUNDROUNDROUNDTHE STTHE STTHE STTHE STTHE STAAAAATETETETETENATIONAL

AWARDJudge Michael O’Neal, Chief Admin-istrative Judge for the City of DallasMunicipal Court, has been selected toreceive the 2000 American BarAssociation (ABA) Judicial DivisionNational Conference of Special CourtJudges Franklin N. Flaschner JudicialAward. The Judicial Division of theABA presents this award to recognizean individual’s leadership efforts,which improve judicial education andthe advancement of the quality ofjustice in courts of special and limitedjurisdiction.

Dallas City Manager Ted Benavidessaid that he was delighted and veryproud of Judge O’Neal. “I have knownJudge O’Neal for a long time and hedoes indeed exhibit remarkable traitsof truthfulness, courtesy, integrity,decisiveness in judicial activities. JudgeO’Neal is an invaluable member ofthe municipal government. It is anhonor for the City of Dallas to haveindividuals like him making sure thatour laws are upheld.”

Judge O’Neal merits this award forexhibiting high ideals, personalcharacter and competence in perform-ing judicial duties that were exempli-fied by the late Chief Franklin N.Flaschner of the District Court ofMassachusetts. Like him, JudgeO’Neal has made significant contribu-tions on local, state and national levelsto continuing education of the judi-ciary and in other ways improvedequality of justice in courts withspecial and limited jurisdiction.

On the local level, Judge O’Neal hasbeen very active in the DomesticViolence Task Force and enhancing theoperations of the Municipal Court inDallas to be a model for other jurisdic-tions. On the state level, Judge O’Nealhas been active giving presentations onEthics, Role of the Judge, SentencingAlternatives, Emergency Protection Ordersand Update on Changes in SignificantCase Law. He is also a member of theState Commission on Judicial Conductand the State Judicial Committee onInformation and Technology. He is apast-president of the Texas MunicipalCourts Association and currently servesas a regional director.

CRIMEVICTIMS

CONFERENCEThe 14th Annual Texas Crime VictimClearinghouse Conference will beoffered on October 15-19, 2000 inLubbock, Texas. Over 65 workshopswill be offered on a range of topics,including: Compassion Fatigue, Second-ary Traumatization and Other Types ofBurnout, Workplace Violence, UnlearningSexual Harassment, Dancing with theGorilla (Alcohol & Drug Abuse), andHow to Develop a Web Site that may beof interest to court support personnelin the municipal setting.

A plenary session is scheduled forOctober 16, 2000 of interest to mu-nicipal courts. Justice of the PeaceDavid M. Cobos, Precinct 2, MidlandCounty, and James R. Henry, Commu-nity Supervision Coordinator of Mid-land, will present a session on Breakingthe Cycle of Juvenile Crime. The Midlandprogram involves alternative sentencing,a Teen Leadership Academy and TeenLeadership Program.

The registration fee is $180 if paidbefore September 1, 2000 (payable tothe Texas Department of Criminal

August 2000 Municipal Court Recorder

ELECTIONAND JURY

PUNISHMENT INMUNICIPAL

COURTSBy Ryan Kellus Turner

TMCEC Program Attorney

Initiated patrons of Chapter 45 of theCode of Criminal Procedure know alltoo well that no matter how manytimes they read its provisions there arealways unconsidered issues waiting tosurface in discussion.1 During the pastacademic year a number of judgesunearthed exactly such an issue. Dodefendants who request a jury trialhave the right to have the jury set thefine? What raised this question is thelanguage of article 45.036 (Verdict)which states:

(a) When the jury has agreed on a verdict,the jury shall bring the verdict into court,

(b) The justice or judge shall see that theverdict is in proper form and shall renderthe proper judgment and sentence on theverdict.

On its face, the language of article45.036 suggests that while the jurydetermines the verdict (i.e., guilty ornot guilty), the judgment and sentence(i.e., the amount of the fine and/or anyother sanction that is rehabilitative orremedial in nature) are determined bythe judge.

Justice). For additional information,contact: Texas Crime Victims Clearing-house, P. O. Box 13401, Austin, Texas78711 800/848-4284 or 512/406-5531. Checks or purchase orders forregistration should be sent to MaryGarrett & Associates, 3538 S.Alameda, Corpus Christi, Texas78411.

While article 45.036 (formerly article45.42) may run afoul of the routinepractice of courts that presume adefendant’s request for a jury trialentails that the jury also sets the fine,the above stated interpretation doesaccurately reflect a general presump-tion in Texas law. Where problemsarise, however, is when judges construearticle 45.036 as absolutely barringjuries from setting the fine under anycircumstances. To completely under-stand article 45.036, it must beharmonized with the other Code ofCriminal Procedure provisions pertain-ing to verdict contained in Chapter 37.

Background

Texas law does not provide the defen-dant with a constitutional right to jurysentencing.2 Rather, the right to jurysentencing is purely statutory inorigin.3 To invoke this right, a defen-dant must make a timely election ofjury sentencing.4 Article 37.07, section2(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedureprovides that in non-capital cases:

“if a finding of guilty is returned,it shall be the responsibility of thejudge to assess the punishmentapplicable to the offense; pro-vided, however, that (1) in anycriminal action where the jurymay recommend probation andthe defendant filed his swornmotion for probation ... and (2)in other cases where the defendant soelects in writing before the com-mencement of the voir dire examina-tion of the jury panel, the punish-ment shall be assessed by the samejury… [emphasis added].5

While section 2(b)(1) is inapplicable tomunicipal and justice courts, the broadlanguage of 2(b)(2) provides thestatutory language for defendants in allTexas trial courts who make a timelyjury election to have the jury assess thepunishment in the event the defendantis found guilty.6

When Must JuryPunishment be Elected?

If there is a pre-trial hearing in thecase, article 28.01 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure provides that anymatter that can be raised at a pre-trialhearing must be raised or the defen-dant risks forfeiting the matter.7Among the laundry list of issues thatshould be raised at a pre-trial hearingare the pleadings of the defendant.8

Pleadings of the defendant are statuto-rily defined to include “[a]n election,if any to have the jury assess thepunishment if he is found guilty.”9 InPostell v State, the Court of CriminalAppeals held that if there is a pre-trialhearing, the election must be madewithin the time frame imposed byarticle 28.01.10 Thus, only in theevent there is no pre-trial hearing maya defendant delay presenting the courtwith a written election of jury punish-ment until “before the commence-ment of the voir dire examination ofthe jury panel.”11

Consequence of Untimely orImproper Election

Several Courts of Appeals have ruledthat if there is no pre-trial hearing andif the defendant does not make awritten election before the beginningof jury voir dire, the defendant forfeitsthe right to jury punishment.12

Accordingly, by default, the trialjudge sets the punishment. With thisin mind, and the fact that municipaland justice courts encounter a highnumber of pro se defendants, judgesmay consider taking proper steps toassure that defendants understandtheir statutory right to elect that thejury determine punishment.

The Bottom Line

Though defendants pleading guiltyhave a constitutional right to a jurytrial, they do not have a constitutionalright for the jury to determine thepenalty if the defendant is found


guilty. To the contrary, the generalpresumption in Chapters 37 and 45 isthat the judge shall determine thepunishment/sentence. This presump-tion, however, is not absolute. Inmunicipal court, an election made bythe defendant at either a pre-trialhearing or before the jury isempanelled (whichever occurs first)entitles the defendant to have theamount of his or her fine determinedby the jury. While it is probably safeto venture that most defendantsrequesting a jury trial will want thejury to set the amount of the fine ifthey are found guilty, some may not.Either way, it is important for defen-dants requesting a jury trial to beinformed of their statutory right toelect that the jury set the punishment.___________________________

1 For the uninitiated, Chapter 45 containsprocedures specific to municipal andjustice courts.

2 Washington v. State, 677 S.W.2d 524, 527(Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Tinney v. State,578 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979);Ex parte Giles, 502 S.W.2d 774, 782 (Tex.Crim. App. 1973).

3 Dix & Dawson, Texas Practice § 38.11(Vol. 42, 1995).

4 Id. (Referring to Code of CriminalProcedure art. 37.07 § 2(b)).

5 Code of Criminal Procedure art. 37.07 §2(b) (emphasis added).

6 In terms of determining punishment, theprimary distinction between municipaland justice courts and county and districtcourts is that article 37.07 § 2(a) does notauthorize municipal and justice courts tobifurcate the trial (i.e., have a separate trialproceeding to determine the properpunishment in the event the defendant isfound guilty).

7 Code of Criminal Procedure art. 28.01 §2.

8 Code of Criminal Procedure art. 28.01 §1(2).

9 Code of Criminal Procedure art. 27.02 §7.

10 693 S.W.2d 462, 464-65 (Tex. Crim.App. 1985).

11 Code of Criminal Procedure art. 37.07 §2(b)

12 Caro v. State, 771 S.W.2d 610, 619 (Tex.

App.-Dallas 1989); Teubner v. State, 742S.W.2d 57 (Tex. App.-Houston [14thDist], pet.ref’d).

PREJUDGMENTJAIL CREDIT

By W. Clay AbbottTMCEC General Counsel

Special instructions are given inChapter 45 of the Code of CriminalProcedure to municipal courts con-cerning entry of judgment.Art.45.041(c), C.C.P. mandates thejudge give the defendant credit fortime served in jail. Art. 45.041(c),C.C.P. specifically directs the munici-pal court to Art. 42.03 C.C.P. for theprocedure for calculation of jail credit.The defendant is entitled to “credit onhis sentence for the time that thedefendant has spent in jail in saidcause…from the time of his arrest andconfinement until his sentence by thetrial court” (emphasis added). Art.42.03, Sec.2(a), C.C.P.

In Hannington v. State, 832 S.W.2d355 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992), theTexas Court of Criminal Appealsdetailed the effect of Art. 42.03,Sec.2(a), C.C.P. on “stacked” sen-tences. The Court of Criminal Appealsin Hannington, granted Habeas reliefon consideration of the whole courtwithout dissent. In that case, thedefendant was sentenced to three“stacked” terms of years under Art.42.08, C.C.P. The defendant served173 days before sentence on all threecases, and the trial court divided thosedays between the three cases whenentering judgment. The Court ofCriminal Appeals ruled that thedefendant was entitled to 173 dayscredit in each case under Art. 42.03,Sec.2(a), C.C.P. The Court recognizedthat such an application granted“double credit.”

Application of this doctrine has amuch greater impact since the largeincrease by the 76th Legislature in1999 in the minimum required dailyjail credit. Art. 45.041(c), C.C.P. alsospecifically refers municipal courts toArt. 45.048, C.C.P. on the issue of thejail credit rate. Art. 45.048, C.C.P.requires that the court credit thedefendant “at the rate of not less than$100 for each day or part of a day.”

The Court of Criminal Appeals madeclear that its holding and the man-dates of Art. 42.03, Sec. 2(a) C.C.P.applied only to jail time the defendantserved before a judgment was entered.No “double credit” is necessary forperiods subsequent to sentencing. Thisruling is consistent with the ruling inEx Parte Minjares, 582 S.W.2d 105(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). In that casethe Court of Criminal Appeals foundthat in cases of incarceration resultingfrom capias pro fines, sentences wouldbe served consecutively or were“stacked.” In fine-only offenses, acapias pro fine no stacking order underArt. 42.08(a), C.C.P. was necessary forcases to be calculated as consecutive.Under Art. 42.08(a), C.C.P., a courtmay order sentences on separate casesto be served consecutively with aproper inclusion of such an order inthe judgment, as was done inHannington, supra. Minjares, supra.only involved post-judgment jail creditand still has the same effect when readwith Hannington, supra. Even if thecourt orders offenses be served con-secutively, or “stacked”, the court mustgive credit for prejudgment incarcera-tion in each cause for which thedefendant was held.

MAGISTRATION continued from Page 1

Cir. 1984). Art. 15.17 does not allowfor an adversarial proceeding like trialor an examining trial (discussedhereinafter). Since the hearing is notadversarial, generally no right toappointed counsel attaches at this


stage of proceedings. Green v. State,872 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. Crim. App.1994). The magistrate is not requiredto, nor probably should, listen to thedefendant’s side of the story.

If the defendant is arrested pursuant toa warrant, usually no independentinquiry of probable cause is necessary.Valid warrants contain a previousjudicial determination of probablecause. The magistrate may rely on thatfinding but must proceed with theother requirements of Art. 15.17.

Giving Warnings

Before proper warnings can be made, amagistrate must determine that thewarnings can be understood. Inter-preters for the hearing impaired areprovided for in the law, see Art. 15.17(c) C.C.P. Interpreters for those whodo not speak English are not addressedin Art. 15.17. Art. 38.30 C.C.P.,which deals with language interpret-ers, does not seem to speak to 15.17appearances. Some effort should stillbe made, when possible, to assureunderstanding.

The magistrate must make the warn-ings in “clear language.” Probably noone short of appellate courts knowswhat that means. A good bet is to stickto the script found in Art. 15.17 itselfand outlined as it appears in thestatute below.

The magistrate must first inform thedefendant of the “accusation againsthim and of any affidavit filed there-with.” This is simply notice of thecharges against the defendant onwhich the magistrate found probablecause. The main purpose is to informthe defendant of the appropriateseriousness of his or her charges. Thelanguage concerning affidavits alsosuggests the limited right to know thatan affidavit has been filed, and perhapssome right to inspection. It is stillimportant to note that a magistrate is

required to give notice, not to conductan adversarial hearing.

Next comes a laundry list of setwarnings or notification of rights thatinclude:

• right to retain counsel,

• right to remain silent,

• right to have an attorney presentduring any interview with peaceofficers or attorneys representing thestate,

• right to terminate the interview atany time,

• right to request the appointment ofcounsel if he is indigent and cannotafford counsel,

• right to have an examining trial.

Art. 15.17 then sets out that themagistrate must inform the defendantthat “he is not required to make astatement and that any statementmade by him may be used againsthim.” These warnings do not trackverbatim the Miranda decision or Art.38.22 but cover the same basic rights.Many magistrates also use this oppor-tunity to cover warnings concerningdeportation on felony conviction andthe rights under the Vienna Conven-tion (addressed in previous issues ofThe Recorder).

Every effort should be made to makethe notice and warnings as accurateand complete as possible. However,minor failures or omissions may notresult in suppression of later confes-sions and will not entitle the defen-dant to release. Shadrick v. State, 491S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973).

Setting Bail

The Texas Constitution provides ageneral right to bail in Art. 1, section11. The Art. 15.17 hearing must be

prompt because it is the stage wherebond amounts and conditions are set.Art. 1, section 13 of the Texas Consti-tution further provides that “excessivebail shall not be required.” The generalpolicy of Texas criminal jurisprudenceis that persons should not be incarcer-ated prior to trial.

The purpose of bail is to ensureappearance of the defendant for trial.Art. 17.01 C.C.P. The Code of Crimi-nal Procedure leaves determination ofthe amount of bond to the magistrate’sdiscretion, subject to five rules orconsiderations. Art. 17.15 C.C.P. Bondshould be “sufficiently high to givereasonable assurance” of later courtappearance. Art. 17.15(1) C.C.P. Bondcannot be used as a form of oppressionor punishment. Art. 17.15(2) C.C.P.The nature and degree of the charge aswell as the circumstances of the offenseitself should be considered. Art.17.15(3) C.C.P. The specificdefendant’s ability or inability to makebail should be considered. Art.17.15(4) C.C.P. Finally, the code nowprovides that the magistrate mustconsider the safety of the specificvictim and the safety of the commu-nity as a whole. Art. 17.15(5) C.C.P.Denial of bail is appropriate only incapital cases and very specific circum-stances listed in the Texas Constitu-tion. Those situations are properlyaddressed by motion by the State indistrict court. Art. 1, sect. 11(a), TexasConstitution.

No more specific or amount guidelinesexist. The Court of Criminal Appealsin opinions from a sharply dividedCourt has made a general declarationthat seven figure bonds cannot becondoned. Ludwig v. State, 812 S.W.2d323 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Thelower courts seem to ignore this lessthan solid precedent. Ex Parte Brown,959 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. App.-FortWorth 1998). In determining a properbond amount the Code of CriminalProcedure and courts provide great


amounts of policy guidance and littlepractical assistance. Broad discretionseems to be accorded the magistrateand few tangible mandates seem toexist.

Personal bonds are bonds that do notrequire a surety or bail bond company.The magistrate, as a “low end” alterna-tive, should consider personal bonds.The magistrate and the system oftenoverlook the personal bond. There are,however, limits on personal bonds forthe higher level offenses. Art. 17.03(b)C.C.P. Since the ability to make bondis a major consideration, personalbonds seem essential in providing equalprotection of the indigent. The magis-trate should make inquiry into indi-gence and the ability to make bond.Every defendant is not entitled to abond they can make, but every defen-dant is entitled to consideration oftheir ability to make bond.

Bonds should be designated as personalor surety bonds. The magistrate, exceptin the limited circumstances of capiasafter bond forfeiture under Art. 23.05C.C.P., cannot designate a bond as cashor surety only. Ex Parte Deaton, 582S.W.2d 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).The magistrate is also prohibited fromsetting differing amounts of bond forsurety or cash. Professional Bail Bonds-man of Texas v. Carey, 762 S.W.2d 691(Tex. App.-Amarillo 1988).

Setting bail in fine-only offensesinvolves separate consideration. Art.15.17(b) C.C.P. provides in fine-onlymisdemeanors for the outright releasewithout bail of defendants with ordersto appear at a later time for arraign-ment. This release is made after adetermination that probable causeexists. The magistrate may not orderrelease without bond if the defendanthas previously been convicted of a non-fine-only offense or if the defendant isnot identified with certainty. The lastpart of Art. 15.17(b) is a potentialroadblock; it provides that later

appearance be in county court. Manyargue that this makes the provisioninapplicable to offenses within thejurisdiction of the municipal court.This grant of a reasonable powershould not be terminated where themagistrate has the ability to order thelater appearance in his or her owncourt. Lastly, if the defendant fails toappear the magistrate should set bondat twice the fine amount. This lastsection seems to provide very concreteguidance for bond amounts in fine-only offenses.

Recent expansion in the law of bondshas been in the area of bond condi-tions. Although a comprehensivetreatment of these developments willbe saved for another newsletter article,magistrates who regularly set bondsshould read Code of Criminal Proce-dure Arts. 17.40-17.46.

Continuing Obligationsof 15.17 Magistrate

Jail population is becoming a hottopic in this age of jail standardslawsuits, close criminal justice mediascrutiny, and general calls for localgovernment to decrease expenditures.A district judge took it on himself toreview and alter the bonds set bymagistrates on behalf of the jailpopulation who were waiting forformal charges in courts with jurisdic-tion. The judge changed bonds fromsurety bonds to personal bonds. Thedistrict attorney applied for writs ofmandamus and prohibition from theCourt of Criminal Appeals. In Guerrav. Garza, 987 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. Crim.App. 1999) the Court of CriminalAppeals granted the writs and made afinding that the magistrate setting thebond has exclusive jurisdiction overthe complaint until filing of formalcharges in a court with jurisdiction.

One obvious implication of this case isthat the magistrate setting bond at theArt. 15.17 hearing must carry out an

examining trial under Chapter 16 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure. Thismight appear to be a bit difficult forthe part-time night magistrate.Nothing in the case speaks to exchangeof bench or other case managementstructures. Since “courts” are usuallyconsidered more broadly than indi-vidual judges, this case should notprohibit a local municipal court fromdelegating the court’s responsibilityamong its judges as it sees fit. Move-ment from jurisdiction to jurisdictionseems to be prohibited.

The examining trial is an adversarialhearing before the magistrate todetermine probable cause in felonycases. Art. 16.01 C.C.P. Examiningtrials can also be used to contest theamount of bond. The rules of evi-dence; the right to call witnesses,examine witnesses, and summonwitnesses; and in the proper case theright to counsel all apply in examiningtrials. Art. 16.01, 16.06, 16.07 C.C.P.The presentment of an indictment willdetermine the issue of probable causeand render an examining trial moot.Return of an indictment also diveststhe magistrate of jurisdiction. Harris v.State, 457 S.W.2d 903 (Tex. Crim.App. 1970). A magistrate is powerlessto prevent an indictment in order toprovide an examining trial. State ex relHolmes v. Salinas, 784 S.W.2d 421(Tex. Crim. App. 1990).

It is also important to note that thereis nothing in the Court of CriminalAppeals opinion involving HabeasCorpus. A defendant contestingprobable cause or excessive bail in afelony or a misdemeanor could stillseek redress in a district court by wayof a writ of Habeas Corpus. Lastly,bond issues could be raised in the trialcourt after the formal presentment ofcharges.

Conclusion

While it may initially seem Art. 15.17sets out a rather simple and needless


procedure, it becomes clear it is thesole limit on very broad powers toarrest given Texas peace officers. TheArt. 15.17 procedure is also a veryimportant one for both the defendantand the State of Texas. Wrong doersthat do not return to court to faceprosecution may escape justice en-tirely. Violent criminals once appre-hended should not be allowed torepeatedly prey on their victims beforethe imposition of punishment. Yet,those individuals who cannot besuccessfully prosecuted should not beforced to wait in jail for prosecutorialdecision-making or bear the cost ofbond and accusation. Presumedinnocent citizens should not pay theirpenalty before the right to trial isavailable.

There is close public scrutiny at thearrest stage of sensational offenses; thisfurther complicates the issues beforethe magistrate. The vital first stage ofmost prosecutions rests in the handsof the Art. 15.17 magistrate.

It is a simple truth; with much powercomes much responsibility. Art. 15.17of the Code of Criminal Proceduregives a magistrate a great deal ofpower.

RULE 12 ANDACCESS TO

COURTRECORDS

By Margaret McGloin BennettGeneral Counsel

Office of Court Administration

Which records of the judiciary are open tothe public? In 1999, the SupremeCourt of Texas promulgated Rule 12of the Texas Rules Judicial Administra-tion to shed light on this issue. Inpart, Rule 12 was promulgated

because the “Public Information Act,”formerly the “Open Records Act,” doesnot apply to records of the judiciary.The purpose of Rule 12 is to providepublic access to information in thejudiciary consistent with the mandatesof the Texas Constitution and otherstate law which recognize that publicinterests are best served by open courtsand by an independent judiciary.

Rule 12 of the Rules of JudicialAdministration governs access to“judicial records,” which are recordsnot pertaining to the adjudicativefunction of the court or judicial agency.As Rule 12 states, “A record of anynature created, produced, or filed inconnection with any matter that is orhas been before a court is not a judicialrecord.” In other words, Rule 12governs access primarily to administra-tive records of a court or judicialagency, but does not govern access tocase records. Access to case records isgoverned by common law and other

Two form documents are included onthe following pages to be used inconnection to Art. 15.17 C.C.P.hearings.

The first form, Magistrate’s Commit-ment Form, is a commitment formthat shows the magistrate foundprobable cause, gave warnings andset bond. One commitment shouldbe filled out for each charge. Nameof the offense, bail amount, signatureand date must be filled out everytime. Other options are self-explana-tory and reference the articles thatprovide the magistrate with authorityto perform the function of the para-graph.

The second form, Article 15.17(b)Form, can be used to release adefendant under Art. 15.17 (b) C.C.P.in fine-only on-view arrests. It doesnot have a bond amount, but doesinclude spaces for the Court, timeand place for appearance.

COMPANION FORMS statutory law. The custodian of caserecords is always the clerk of the courtin which the case was pending; thecustodian of judicial records (i.e., theadministrative records of the court) isthe judge.

Petitions for review of denial of accessto judicial records are filed with theOffice of Court Administration, andare then forwarded to the committeeof presiding judges who write the Rule12 opinions. However, neither OCAnor the presiding judges have enforce-ment powers under Rule 12. That isreserved by Rule 12 to mandamusrelief through the court system or tosanctions by the Judicial ConductCommission under the Code ofJudicial Conduct.

Rule 12 Appeal Number 00-001addressed whether “traffic citationrecords” in possession of a municipalcourt were subject to release underRule 12. The committee of presidingjudges opined that “traffic citationrecords pertain to the municipalcourt’s adjudicative function and arecreated, produced, and filed inconnection with matters that are orhave been before the municipal court.Thus, they are not judicial recordswithin the meaning of Rule 12, andwe cannot decide the question ofwhether they are exempt fromdisclosure.” Even though “trafficcitation records” were determined notto be judicial records, the opinion wenton to explain the duties of a court inrelation to public access to non-judicial records (i.e., adjudicative orcase records). Case records of the courtare presumed to be open to inspectionby the press and public. The reason forclosing or denying access to criminalcase records must be clearlyarticulated. Wrongful denial of accessto case records is remedied throughthe court system, primarily bymandamus relief.

Rule 12 continued on Page 10


MAGISTRATE'S COMMITMENT FORM Defendant's Name: Agency:

Arrest Date: Agency Report No.: I, the undersigned Magistrate, hereby certify that the defendant appeared before me on this date and was informed pursuant to Art. 15.17, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure of the accusation against him/her and of any affidavit filed therewith, of his/her right to counsel, of his/her right to remain silent, of his/her right to have an attorney present during any interview with peace officers or attorneys representing the state, of his/her right to terminate the interview at any time, of his/her right to request the appointment of counsel if he/she is indigent and cannot afford counsel, and of his/her right to have an examining trial, and I informed the person arrested that he/she is not required to make a statement and that any statement made may be used against him/her. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO COMMIT TO JAIL THE BODY OF THE DEFENDANT ON THE FOLLOWING CHARGED OFFENSE(S). THE SAID DEFENDANT MAY BE RELEASED ON THE BOND AMOUNT(S) AND/OR CONDITIONS SET OUT BELOW. WARRANT/COMPLAINT/OR PROBABLE CAUSE FOR:

Offense Felony/Misdemeanor BAIL IS SET AT: $ Surety or Cash Bond Personal Bond "Family Violence" Detention hold is directed pursuant to Art. 17.291 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure for ____ hours after bond has been posted if signed in space provided hereafter by Magistrate who finds probable cause to conclude and hereby does conclude that the family violence will continue if the Defendant is released prior thereto:

So Ordered: Magistrate's signature

OTHER: Conditions of release on bond are ordered as follows where initialed in space by Magistrate:

1. Article 17.41 condition where a child is the victim: _____ 2. Article 17.441 condition requiring motor vehicle ignition interlock is ordered: _____ 3. Other conditions:

Any or all of these conditions for release on bond are to be incorporated by reference and attached to the bond posted by the defendant. The defendant is to sign the conditions, acknowledging receipt and notice thereof prior to release. A copy of the conditions of release is to be filed with the ________________ County Magistrate's office the next working day following release and the original is to remain attached to the original of the bond. DEFENDANT IS TO BE HELD TO ANSWER TO THE PROPER COURT OF _________________ COUNTY, TEXAS, OR ANY COURT OR MAGISTRATE BEFORE WHOM THIS CAUSE MAY BE HEREINAFTER PENDING AT ANY TIME AND PLACE AS MAY BE REQUIRED. HEREIN FAIL NOT, of this commitment Writ make due return, showing how you have executed the same.

ISSUED THIS _____ day of _____________________, _______ at _______________________ o'clock _____.m.

_____________________________________

Magistrate

________________________ County, Texas


ARTICLE 15.17(b) FORM

Report #: Agency: Charge:

The Defendant is released without bond and ordered to appear in person at __________________

Court, on or before the _____ day of _____________________, _______ at _________________

o'clock _____.m., located at .

A copy of the "Release Order Misdemeanor Fine Only Offense" is attached to this commitment form, to be filed with the Justice Court/Other Court the next working day and a copy delivered to the Defendant upon his release. HEREIN FAIL NOT, of this commitment Writ make due return, showing how you have executed the same. SIGNED THIS _____ day of _____________________, _______ at _______________________ o'clock _____.m.

_____________________________________ Magistrate

________________________ County, Texas

If Interpreter necessary:

____________________________________ Name of Interpreter


JUVENILE LAWThe Texas Juvenile Probation Commis-sion (TJPC) is now accepting ordersfor the upcoming publication, TexasJuvenile Law, 5th Edition by ProfessorRobert O. Dawson of the University ofTexas School of Law. TJPC expects that

The Rule 12 opinions, Rule 12 andthe other Rules of Judicial Administra-tion are posted on the OCA web site,The Texas Judiciary Online, atwww.courts.state.tx.us. As of thiswriting five opinions have been issued.Because I serve as legal counsel to thepresiding judges on Rule 12 matters, Icannot answer questions about theapplication of Rule 12 to particularfact situations. If you have suchquestions, please call the Texas Munici-pal Courts Education Center.

INFORMATIONNEEDED ONFINANCIALANALYSIS

Rene Henry, Collections ProjectManager with the Office of CourtAdministration, is working with theTexas Municipal Courts EducationCenter to develop a class on financialanalysis for municipal court adminis-trators. Listed below is informationneeded to help design the class. We areasking all courts that perform financialanalyses to please respond. We wouldalso appreciate information that courtsreceive from their finance departmentsto help them prepare these analyses.

Rene Henry is collecting the informa-tion and he can be reached at Office ofCourt Administration, P.O. Box12066, 205 W. 14th Street, Suite 600,Austin, Texas 78701-2066. Histelephone number is 512/463-1635and his fax number is 512/463-1648.

The following information is neededfrom municipal courts performingfinancial analysis:

• Financial analysis done to determinethe average costs of performingvarious functions in a municipal

FOR YOURCOURT

court (e.g., processing a case,holding a jury trial, puttingsomeone on community service,putting someone on deferred,handling a telephone call, writingand sending a letter, preparing andissuing a warrant, setting up apayout agreement, taking a paymentover the counter).

• Financial analysis done to determinethe revenue impact of utilizingadditional collection tools (e.g.,credit cards, official payment,Western Union, e-Court).

• Financial analysis done to makedecisions relating to capital outlays(e.g., upgrading computer system,enhancing communication system).

• Financial analysis done to makedecisions relating to adding ordeleting the number of personnel(e.g., an additional clerk needs to beadded when caseload reaches acertain point, an additionalsupervisor needs to be added whenthe number of clerks reaches acertain level).

• Unique approaches to budgetpreparation and/or presentation.

• Detailed monthly or quarterlymunicipal court financial state-ments.

the 5th Edition will be available fordelivery in early September 2000.

Texas Juvenile Law has long been themost comprehensive reference onjuvenile law and the 5th Editioncontains some exciting new changesand additions:

• 2 Volume Set - Books can bepurchased as a set or individually. Theprice for the set is $35.

• Volume 1- Texas Juvenile Law.Contains the regular reference text,case citations and commentary byProfessor Dawson and includes legisla-tive changes through the 1999 session.Volume 1 will have a heavy duty spiralbinding for increased durability andfrequent use. Volume 1 price is $25.

• Volume 2 - Statutory ReferenceMaterials. Includes excerpts from theFamily Code, Education Code, theCode of Criminal Procedure, HumanResources Code, and the Health andSafety Code just to mention a few.Another excellent feature of Volume 2is that the statutes are arrangedtopically to assist users. For example,all statutes in various codes related todeterminate sentencing are groupedtogether. Volume 2 price is $10.

• New Index Feature - Volume 1 ofthe 5th Edition will have a completeindex by topic to assist users. Thisindex feature will be extremely benefi-cial to frequent users of this book.

Also included in the purchase price ofthe 5th Edition will be the 2001Supplement which will be publishedafter the 77th Texas Legislature inSeptember of 2001. Purchasers willautomatically be sent a Supplementwhen it is published.

The TJPC website contains an orderform to purchase copies of TexasJuvenile Law, 5th Edition.[www.tjpc.state.tx.us]

Rule 12 continued from Page 7


These two contracts allow any quali-fied judicial entity to contract witheither or both companies to receive thelegal research services at special pricesand terms. The preferred prices andterms are available to all judges in thestate judiciary, including designatedmembers of their staff, as well as tostaff at the State Law Library and atcounty law libraries, prosecutors, TitleIV-D masters, staff attorneys atjudicial training centers, attorneys atthe Office of Court Administrationand State Commission on JudicialConduct, and staff at the Texas Dis-trict and County Attorneys Associa-tion.

Lexis-Nexis is providing full Lexis andShepard’s for a cost of $15 per monthto judges and the judicial trainingcenters, and $35 per month to thestate and county law libraries and tothe prosecutors. The full Lexis data-base includes cases, statutes and otherprimary legal materials from state andfederal jurisdictions, plus secondarysources and the lexis.com researchsystem. For $10 extra each month,these same entities can also receive theMathew Bender Texas treatise library.Call 1/800-227-9597, extension 6206for more details regarding this offer.

The West Group is providing fourdatabase groupings to all qualifiedjudicial entities. The database group-ings range from $50 per month forcertain Texas resource materials to$200 per month for full Westlaw, KeyCite, and Dow Jones Interactivedatabases. Call 1/800-762-5272 formore details regarding this offer.

Lexis-Nexis and the West Group willbe contacting members of the judi-ciary to initiate contracts under thestatewide contracts. Participatingjudicial entities will purchase theservices directly from the two compa-nies and will be billed directly by thecompanies.

IMPROVINGACCESS

The American Judicature Society (AJS)has published The Right to a FullHearing: Improving Access to the Courtsfor People who are Deaf or Hard ofHearing. The book can be used as aself-study guide for judges and clerksto ensure equal access to their courts.It contains an excellent “Self Evalua-tion and Needs Assessment Criteria forCourts” in the Appendix. TMCEC hasa limited number that will be mailedto municipal courts on a first come-first serve basis. Contact Rey Guzmanat the Center (800/252-3718).Additional copies may be ordered fromAJS in Chicago (180 N. MichiganAve., Suite 600, Chicago, Ill 60601-7401 312/558-6900). Or, you mayemail [email protected] to request acopy.

AJS also has a video program entitledSilent Justice available for $25. To ordera copy, please call Rodney Wilson at312/558-6900 ext. 147 or email himat [email protected].

OJJDP AUDIOCONFERENCES

The Office of Juvenile Justice Delin-quency Prevention (OJJDP) continuesto host audio-teleconferences on theEnforcing Underage Drinking LawsProgram. These conference calls arefree to the public. To register for theseelectronic seminars call the Audio-Teleconference Hotline toll-free at877/335-1287, extension 230, oremail Robin Stearn at [email protected].

If you have any questions, please donot hesitate to call or write the TexasJuvenile Probation Commission atPost Office Box 13547, Austin, Texas78711, Attention Kristy Carr.

COURTVOLUNTEERS

Volunteers in court are often helpfulin working with young people, as wellas adult repeat offenders. There is aCourt Volunteer Service division ofthe National Judicial College in Reno,Nevada directed by Judge KeithLeenhouts and Judge V. RobertPayant. Judge Leenhouts has writtentwo publications, Misdemeanor Courts:Hope for Crime Weary America andCrime, Courts and Christ. One isdesigned for the non-religious volun-teer while the second is for thereligious volunteer (Christian andJewish faiths). Copies may be down-loaded from the Internet[www.olemiss.edu/depts./mjs] or bycontacting Judge Leenhouts, 830Normandy Road, Royal Oak, Michi-gan 48073 (248/435-5592).

COMPUTERASSISTED

LEGALRESEARCH

On behalf of the Judicial Committeeon Information Technology, the Officeof Court Administration has enteredinto agreements with both the WestGroup and Lexis-Nexis Group to offercourts discounted rates on computer-assisted legal research. A summary ofeach company’s services is shown inthe chart on Pages 12-13 in thisnewsletter.


THE WEST GROUP

Texas State Databases & KeyCite All $50 per month

• KeyCite for all jurisdictions • Texas state cases including West’s editorial

enhancements • Vernon’s® Annotated Texas Statutes and Codes • Texas Legislative Service • Texas Administrative Code • Texas Court Rules and Orders • Texas Attorney General Opinions • 21 Texas Administrative decision databases • Texas Law Reviews and Journals • West Legal Directory® – Texas • Printing and downloading from the included

databases

Texas State/Texas Federal & KeyCite All $75 per month

All databases included in the $50 plan PLUS: • West’s editorially enhanced case law from:

United States Supreme Court United States Court of Appeals – 5th Circuit United States District Courts – Texas United States Bankruptcy Courts – Texas

• United States Code Annotated® • United States Public Laws • Federal Court Rules and Orders • Printing and downloading from the included

databases

Westlaw® (All Federal and State Primary Law Databases Plus Law Reviews and Journals)

& KeyCite All $150 per month

All databases included in the $50 and $75 plans PLUS: • All federal cases, statutes, court rules and orders,

attorney general opinions and administrative decisions

• All state cases, statutes, court rules and orders, attorney general opinions and administrative decisions

• Code of Federal Regulations and other administrative and executive materials

• Treatises, law reviews, journals and legal topical highlights (domestic and international)

• West Legal Directory® • Printing and downloading from the included

databases

Westlaw (All Federal and State Primary Law Databases Plus Law Reviews and Journals), Dow Jones Interactive on

Westlaw® & KeyCite All $200 per month

All of the databases and services in the $50, $75, $150 plans PLUS:

• 5,900+ news & business databases from Dow Jones Interactive on Westlaw that provide unparalleled comprehensive coverage of news, business, and financial information

• Printing and downloading from the included databases

Pricing listed is per judicial chamber or per user for non-judicial office.

Use of databases not included with the Subscriber’s database grouping will be charged at

the then current Schedule A to Westlaw Subscriber Agreement, Plan 2 Government.

1 Judicial Offices are all judges and Title IV-D masters, staff attorneys at the Judicial Training Centers, attorneys at the Office of Court Administration, and State

Commission on Judicial Conduct, staff at the State Law Library, staff at the county law libraries, prosecutors and staff at the TDCAA.

For additional information, call 800-762-5272

For more information online: www.westgroup.com


For additional information contact:1/800-227-9597, ext. 6206.

To register online:

http://judicary.lexis.com/activate/tx/

LEXIS–NEXIS

LEXIS-NEXIS (All Federal and All 50 State Primary Law Databases plus Law Reviews

and News) And Shepard’s

ALL $15 per month

• All 50 States and Federal Case Law • All 50 States and Federal Statutes and

Legislative Materials • All 50 States and Federal Administrative

Materials • All jurisdiction SHEPARDS • Over 220 Law Reviews • Individual News Sources • Unlimited searching, printing and downloading • LEXIS-NEXIS Sidebar for the Texas Judiciary,

a customized research homepage for Texas judges

• ECLIPSE Electronic Clipping Service • Training and 24/7/365 support • CheckCite 2000

• Texas Coverage Overview:

• Texas State Cases with LEXIS editorial enhancements

• Texas Statutes and Codes • Texas Advance Legislative Service • Texas Administrative Code • Texas Register • Texas Court Rules and Orders • Texas Attorney General Opinions • Texas Agency Decisions • Texas Law Reviews and Journals • Martindale-Hubbell Texas Law Digest and

Attorney Listings • Texas Jurisprudence 3d

• Texas News Sources:

• The Dallas Morning News • Dallas Observer • The Houston Chronicle • Houston Press • The Houston Lawyer • The Austin American-Statesman • Corpus Christi Caller-Times • Fort Worth Star Telegram • The Texas Lawyer • Texas Bar Journal • Texas Monthly

LEXIS-NEXIS (All Federal and All 50 State Primary Law Databases plus Law Reviews

and News) and Shepard’s; PLUS TEXAS MATTHEW BENDER

add-on option ALL $25 per month

All databases included in the $15 plan PLUS: • Texas Treatises • Texas Litigation Guide, Prof. William

Dorsaneo, III • Texas Criminal Practice, Hon. Frank Maloney • Texas Family Law, Judge John D. Montgomery • Texas Civil Trial Guide, Hon. Earl Johnson, Jr. • Texas Torts and Remedies, James B. Sales and

J. Hadley Edgar • Texas Transaction Guide, Herbert S. Kendrick

and John J. Kendrick • Texas Probate, Estate and Trust Administration,

Kenneth McLaughlin, Jr. • Texas Torts Update, William Dorsaneo, III • Texas Family Law Reporter


FROM THECENTER

TMCEC FY2001PROGRAMSCHEDULE

12-HOUR JUDGE ANDCLERK PROGRAMS

October 30-31, 2000Doubletree Hotel Austin6505 IH35 NorthAustin, TX 78752512/454-3737Registration Deadline: 10/3/00

November 7-8, 2000 ClerksNovember 9-10, 2000 JudgesSheraton Tyler Hotel5701 South BroadwayTyler, TX 75703903/561-5800Registration Deadline: 10/23/00

January 17-18, 2001Omni San Antonio Hotel9821 Colonnade BoulevardSan Antonio, TX 78230210/691-8888Registration Deadline: 12/18/00

February 20-21, 2001Fort Worth Radisson Plaza Hotel815 Main StreetFort Worth, TX 76102Registration Deadline: 1/18/01

March 19-20, 2001Wyndham Greenspoint Hotel Houston12400 Greenspoint DriveHouston, TX 77060281/875-2222Registration Deadline: 2/26/01

April 5-6, 2001Holiday Inn Park Plaza3201 Loop 289 SouthLubbock, TX 79423806/797-3241Registration Deadlline: 3/16/01

April 26-27, 2001 ClerksApril 30 - May 1, 2001 Atty JudgesMay 2-3, 2001 Non-Atty JudgesRadisson Resort South Padre Island500 Padre BoulevardSouth Padre Island, TX 78597956/761-6511Registration Deadline: 4/2/01

June 7-8, 2001Hilton Midland Towers117 West Wall AvenueMidland, TX 79701915/683-6131Registration Deadline: 4/30/01

12-HOUR SPECIAL PROGRAMSFOR JUDGES

October 12-13, 2000Low Volume CourtsRadisson Hotel Wichita Falls100 Central FreewayWichita Falls, TX 76306940/761-6000Registration Deadline: 9/11/00

November 15-16, 2000Judges Special Topics School: Juvenileand the LawOmni Corpus Christi Hotel900 N. Shoreline DriveCorpus Christi, TX 78401361/887-1600Registration Deadline: 10/19/00$35 Registration Fee

January 7-9, 2001Juvenile Justice ConferenceSan Luis Resort Conference Center5222 Seawall BoulevardGalveston, TX 77551409/744-1500Registration Deadline: 12/12/00

February 26-27, 2001Low Volume CourtsInn of the Hills1001 Junction HighwayKerrville, TX 78028830/895-5000Registration Deadline: 2/1/01

March 27-28, 2001Judges’ Scenario SchoolAdam’s Mark Hotel Houston2900 Briarpark DriveHouston, TX 77042713/978-7400Registration Deadline: 2/25/01

April 10-11, 2001Low Volume CourtsHilton College Station Conference Center801 University Drive EastCollege Station, TX 77840979/693-7500Registration Deadline: 3/12/01

June 18-19, 2001Judges’ Scenario SchoolCrowne Plaza North Dallas/Addison14315 Midway RoadAddison, TX 75001972/980-8877Registration Deadline: 5/23/01

24/32-HOUR PROGRAMS FORNEW NON-ATTORNEY JUDGES

AND CLERKS

September 26-29, 200024 Hour Clerks onlyHoliday Inn Austin South3401 South IH-35Austin, TX 78741512/448-2444800/465-4329Registration Deadline: 9/1/00

December 4-8, 2000 JudgesDecember 5-8, 2000 ClerksHoliday Inn Austin South3401 South IH-35Austin, TX 78741512/448-2444800/465-4329Registration Deadline: 11/2/00

July 9-13, 2001 JudgesJuly 10-13, 2001 ClerksHoliday Inn Austin South3401 South IH-35Austin, TX 78741512/448-2444800/465-4329Registration Deadline: 6/14/01

SCHEDULE continued on Page 16


TEXAS MUNICIPAL COURTS EDUCATION CENTER2000-2001 REGISTRATION FORM

Program Attending: Program Dates: Judge Clerk Court Administrator Bailiff/Warrant Officer

TMCEC computer data is updated from the information you provide. Please print legibly and fill out form completely.

Last Name: _____________________________ First Name: ____________________________ MI: _____Social Security #: _______________________________ Male/Female: __________Date Appointed/Elected/Hired: ____________________ Years Experience: ____________

[city] [date]

HOUSING INFORMATIONTMCEC will make all hotel reservations from the information you provide on this form. TMCEC will pay for a single occupancy room at allseminars: four nights at the 32-hour seminars, three nights at the 24-hour seminars/assessment clinics and two nights at the 12-hour and 16-hour seminars.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

COURT MAILING ADDRESSIt is TMCEC’s policy to mail all correspondence directly to the court address.

Street: _____________________________________ City: _________________________ Zip: ___________

Office Telephone #: _____________________ Court #: ____________________ FAX: ___________________

Primary City Served: __________________________ Other Cities Served: ______________________________

Attorney Non-Attorney Full Time Part Time

Status: Presiding Judge Associate/Alternate Judge Justice of the Peace Mayor Bailiff Court Clerk Deputy Clerk Court Administrator Warrant Officer Prosecutor (A registration fee of $250/$100 must accompany registration form.)

Other: ______________________________________________

I certify that I am currently serving as a municipal court judge, city prosecutor or court support personnel in the State of Texas. I agree that I will be responsiblefor any costs incurred if I do not cancel ten (10) working days prior to the seminar. If I have requested a room, I certify that I live at least 30 miles from or musttravel at least 30 minutes to the seminar site. Payment is required ONLY for the prosecutors program and assessment clinics; payment is due with registration form.

_____________________________________________________ __________________________Participant Signature Date

TMCEC 1601 Rio Grande, Suite 550 Austin, TX 78701 FAX 512/435-6118


TEXAS MUNICIPAL COURTSEDUCATION CENTER

1601 RIO GRANDE, SUITE 550AUSTIN, TX 78701-1149www.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.

Bulk RateU.S. Postage

PaidTaylor, TX

Permit No. 8

Change Service Requested

16-HOUR BAILIFF/WARRANTOFFICER PROGRAMS

March 27-28, 2001Adams Mark Hotel Houston2900 Briarpark DriveHouston, TX 77042713/978-7400Registration Deadline: 2/25/01

June 18-19, 2001Crowne Plaza North Dallas/Addison14315 Midway RoadAddison, TX 75001972/980-8877Registration Deadline: 5/23/01

12-HOUR PROSECUTOR/COURT ADMINISTRATOR

PROGRAMS

January 11-12, 2001Holiday Inn San Antonio Riverwalk217 St. Mary’s StreetSan Antonio, TX 78205210/224-2500Registration Deadline: 12/15/00$250/$100 Registration Fee

June 28-29, 2001Harvey Hotel Plano1600 N. Central ExpresswayPlano, TX 75074972/578-8555Registration Deadline: 6/1/01$250/$100 Registration Fee

LEGISLATIVE UPDATEPROGRAMS

July 27, 2001Doubletree Hotel Austin6505 IH-35 NorthAustin TX 78752512/454-3737Registration Deadline: 7/1/01$50 Registration Fee

August 6, 2001Omni Dallas Hotel Park West1590 LBJ FreewayDallas, TX 75234972/869-4300Registration Deadline: 7/6/01$50 Registration Fee

SCHEDULE continued from Page 14

LEVEL III ASSESSMENT CLINICSFOR CLERK CERTIFICATION

September 15-17, 2000Doubletree Club Dallas Park Central8102 LBJ FreewayDallas, TX 75251972/960-6555Registration Deadline: 9/1/00$100 Registration Fee

March 8-11, 2001Inn of the Hills Kerrville1001 Junction HighwayKerrville, TX 78028830/895-5000Registration Deadline: 2/12/01$100 Registration Fee

May 17-20, 2001 (Tentative)Location to be determined$100 Registration Fee

volume 9 august 2000 no. 5 - tmcec :: home · giving warnings, and setting bail. finding probable...

Documents