Recent changes to the Rules of Judicial Education have created more flexible ways for municipal judges to complete their required education hours. If you’re planning your judicial education for the year, it’s worth taking a few minutes to understand the updated pathways.
TMCEC’s new video highlights these options and introduces the “Power of 4”—a concept that shows how four-hour live clinics can be combined to help judges meet their annual requirements more strategically. Watch the short video below to learn how the updated rules may work for you.
A short video explaining recent changes to judicial education requirements and how the “Power of 4” creates new flexible pathways for municipal judges.
What are the basic requirements?
Year One:
New attorney judges must complete 16 hours of live instruction at a seminar or clinic within one year of taking office.
New non-attorney judges must complete a minimum of 32 hours of in-person, continuous instruction at a TMCEC New Judges Seminar
Recurring Annual Education:
Beginning with a judge’s second year of education, all municipal judges are required to annually complete 16 hours of judicial education between September 1st and August 31st.
The required 16 hours must consist of at least eight hours of live instruction from a TMCEC seminar or clinic. The remaining 8 hours of education can be satisfied through live presentation, approved online education, or any combination of approved live events and online education. This is often referred to as flex-time.
Understanding the Expanded Mandatory Credit in Fine-Only Cases
A recent amendment to Article 45A.251, Code of Criminal Procedure, has expanded when mandatory jail credit applies in fine-only misdemeanor cases. Because municipal courts already apply multiple forms of jail credit, it is important to clearly separate what changed from what did not.
This post focuses exclusively on subsection (e) of Article 45A.251.
What This Is Not About
H.B. 16 makes no changes to jail credit under Article 45A.251(d). That provision applies when a defendant is confined on the court’s charge prior to judgment. Judges are already familiar with this type of jail credit, and it continues to operate exactly as it did before the 2025 amendment.
What This Is About
Subsection (e) modifies a separate and additional category of mandatory jail credit in fine-only misdemeanor cases—one that applies even when the confinement had nothing to do with the case that the credit is being applied to.
The Rule (Simplified)
When imposing a fine and costs in a fine-only case, the judge shall credit the defendant, at a rate of not less than $150 per day, for any period the defendant was confined:
while awaiting trial or serving a sentence for another offense; and
the confinement occurred after the commission of the offense the credit is being applied to.
Once these requirements are met, the credit is mandatory.
Why the 2025 Amendment Matters
The Pre-2025 Framework
When subsection (e) was first enacted in 2021, it applied only to confinement “while serving a sentence for another offense.” That limitation had an important consequence in fine-only cases.
No defendant ever serves a jail sentence for a fine only misdemeanor. As stated in Art. 4.14(c), C.C.P., an offense which is punishable by “fine only” is defined as an offense that is punishable by fine and such sanctions, if any, as authorized by statute not consisting of confinement in jail or imprisonment. Art. 45A.251(a) further clarifies “The judgment and sentence for a conviction in a criminal action before a justice or judge is that the defendant pay the amount of the fine and costs to the state.”
As a result, time spent in jail related to a Class C offense—whether following arrest or after a capias pro fine and commitment—did not qualify for mandatory jail credit under subsection (e). That confinement was not time spent “serving a sentence.” Therefore, before 2025, subsection (e) only applied to Class B misdemeanor or higher offenses.
What the 2025 Amendment Expanded
In 2025, the Legislature added the phrase “awaiting trial” to subsection (e). This change expands the statute to require mandatory credit for pre-judgment confinement connected to another offense, even when no sentence has been imposed.
Important clarification: Under subsection (e), both “awaiting trial” and “serving a sentence” always refer to another offense, not the case the credit it is being applied to.
What Does “Awaiting Trial” Mean?
By adding “awaiting trial,” the Legislature recognized that defendants may spend time in jail or prison before judgment “for another offense” and that confinement may now trigger mandatory credit in a fine-only case. While “another offense” is not defined, we can turn to the statute for some clues about what this means. Article 45A.251 is the Judgment statute, instructing judges about the specific procedure and requirements in entering judgment for the class C case before them. In subchapter (e), “another offense” indicates that the analysis regarding mandatory credit is for time spent on a different case than the one for which judgment is being entered. This could be another offense pending or adjudicated in another court (like a county or district court, for example) or even another case in the same court.
The statute does not define “awaiting trial,” and there is currently no case law interpreting the phrase in the context of Art. 45A.251(e). The most prudent approach may be to consider any time spent in jail before judgment as time spent “awaiting trial” regardless of whether a trial ultimately took place.
Following this approach, the other offense could be a Class C charge, such as public intoxication, if the defendant was confined following arrest.
What the Amendment Did Not Change
Although the 2025 amendment expanded eligibility, it did not eliminate important limits.
A Class C offense can never generate qualifying confinement through “serving a sentence.” In municipal and justice courts, the sentence must only be to pay a fine and costs to the state. Municipal courts and justice courts may not impose jail sentences for fine-only offenses. Defendants heading to jail post-conviction in municipal or justice courts are heading there not as part of a sentence but after a commitment as a result of the defendant’s failure to comply with the terms of the judgment.
Time spent in jail after a Chapter 45A capias pro fine and commitment does not qualify as “awaiting trial” under subsection (e) either. That confinement is post-judgment, and therefore the convicted defendant is not “awaiting trial.”
Subsection (e) does not convert fine-only enforcement mechanisms, via commitment to jail, into jail sentences and does not authorize fines to be “laid out” through confinement.
Timing Matters: Why This Credit Appears in the Judgment Statute
Subsection (e) appears in Article 45A.251, the Judgment statute. That placement is significant.
It gives courts clear chronological bookends:
the date the fine-only offense to which credit it being applied was committed; and
the moment judgment is imposed.
Only confinement that occurred after the offense was committed and before judgment is entered can trigger mandatory credit under subsection (e). This structure keeps the analysis grounded at the time of judgment and prevents retroactive application.
Practical Considerations for Courts
Subsection (e) credit is applied at the time of judgment, and courts can only apply it when they have information showing it applies.
In practice:
The issue is most often raised by the defendant, either orally at judgment or through a written request. Courts do have a duty to credit qualifying time served, however, and should inform defendants of the requirement.
If the defendant is present, the court may ask whether the defendant has spent time confined awaiting trial or serving a sentence for another offense since the date of the offense to which credit might be applied. The statute does not address what type of documentation is required from the defendant.
If the defendant is not present, the court may review the file to determine whether a request or documentation has been submitted.
Bottom Line
H.B. 16 expanded mandatory jail credit in fine-only cases, but it did so carefully, not categorically.
Time spent in jail before judgment in any category of criminal case may now trigger mandatory jail credit against Class C misdemeanor judgments.
Post-judgment confinement for a Class C misdemeanor remains outside subsection (e).
Handled correctly, subsection (e) provides meaningful indigency relief without undermining the structure of fine-only sentencing in municipal courts.
To learn more on this topic, there was a webinar on February 12, 2026 (offering judicial education, clerk certification credit, and CLE) titled Jail Credit in Municipal Courts: Surveying the 2026 Landscape. That webinar is now available on-demand.
In one week, TMCEC will host its next 4-Hour Virtual Clinic, Protecting Court Personnel: Security, Privacy, and Planning, a live, interactive program designed to address the evolving risks facing judges, clerks, court administrators, and prosecutors.
📅 Wednesday, January 28, 2026 🕐 1:00–5:00 p.m. (Live via Zoom)
This clinic comes at an important moment for Texas courts. Court security is no longer limited to physical spaces. Personal information, online exposure, off-site threats, and emergency preparedness have become just as critical as what happens inside the courthouse. This program takes a people-first approach to court security—focusing on the safety, privacy, and preparedness of court personnel themselves.
A Live Clinic — and Flexible Education Credit
This program is offered live, allowing participants to engage with faculty, ask questions, and work through real-world scenarios alongside colleagues from across the state. It also takes advantage of the new flexibility in how judicial education hours may be satisfied, giving judges an additional opportunity to meet their education requirements through timely, focused virtual training.
Participants may earn:
4 hours of Judicial Education
4 hours of Clerk Certification Credit
3.25 hours of CLE (including 1 hour of ethics)
What the Clinic Will Cover
The four-hour clinic is structured to build from individual exposure to institutional preparedness:
Court Personnel Privacy and Confidentiality – including recent legislative changes and new statutory protections
Security for Court Personnel Outside the Courtroom – addressing risks beyond the courthouse walls
Emergency Management Plans and Court Security Committees – planning, coordination, and statutory responsibilities
Case Study: The Vegas Leap – a powerful real-world examination of cascading security failures
Together, these sessions provide practical guidance courts can use immediately—whether updating internal plans, strengthening committees, or simply increasing awareness of risks that often go unseen.
Cost and Funding Reminder
$100 Registration Fee
$50 CLE Fee
Training related to court security may be paid for using the Municipal Court Building Security Fund or Courthouse Security Fund under Article 102.017(c)(12), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which expressly authorizes continuing education on security issues for court personnel.
Register Before the Clinic Begins
This live virtual clinic will not be offered on demand, making January 28 the only opportunity to participate in this program.
With just one week to go, now is the time to register and plan to join us for an important conversation about protecting the people who keep our courts running.
Municipal Courts of Record & Chapter 55A Expunctions
Municipal courts of record are authorized to process expunctions under Chapter 55A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Chapter 55A expunctions are distinct from expunctions that all municipal courts process, such as juvenile expunctions under Article 45A.463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or alcohol-related expunctions under Chapter 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code. Therefore, the following information about Chapter 55A expunctions only applies to municipal courts of record—not non-record municipal courts.
Expunction Fee Repeal and Reinstatement
In the 89th Regular Session, the Texas Legislature repealed Article 102.006 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided for a $100 filing fee to be paid by petitioners seeking expunction under Chapter 55A, via S.B. 1667. This bill took effect on September 1, 2025.
During the second special session, H.B. 16 (known as the “court omnibus bill”) passed and was signed by Governor Greg Abbott on September 17, 2025. H.B. 16 did two important things related to the Chapter 55A expunction fee:
Reinstated Article 102.006, effective immediately, but with an expiration date of January 1, 2026.
Enacted Article 102.0061, effective January 1, 2026, which provides for a $100 Chapter 55A expunction fee.
Did the Repeal Ever Take Full Effect?
Section 51.607(c) of the Government Code states that any “imposition or change” of the amount of a court cost or fee does not take effect until January 1, the year after a regular session bill’s enactment. But does the total repeal of a cost or fee constitute a “change” for the purposes of Section 51.607(c)? This seems to be an unresolved gray area. Therefore, a common question has been whether S.B. 1667 triggered Section 51.607(c). If it did not, then the Chapter 55A expunction fee repeal took effect on September 1, 2025.
While official guidance has not yet been provided by the Office of Court Administration or Comptroller, the likely conclusion will be that Section 51.607(c) did not apply to the repealed fee. A “change” is distinguishable from an elimination and typically covers situations where a cost or fee increases or decreases. Furthermore, if 51.607(c) applied to Article 102.006’s repeal, then the temporary reinstatement of Article 102.006 during the special session would be meaningless. If this interpretation holds true, courts of record should have ceased assessing the $100 Chapter 55A expunction fee for petitions filed beginning on September 1, 2025.
Because, however, the Legislature reenacted Article 102.006 effective September 17, 2025, the period where the fee should not have been assessed lasted a mere 16 days. Courts of record were authorized to resume assessing the $100 fee for petitions filed on or after September 17, 2025. Note that because Article 102.006 was reinstated during a special session—and Section 51.607(c) only applies to costs and fees imposed during a regular session—the reinstatement took effect immediately and was not affected by Section 51.607(c).
Putting It All Together
If a petitioner paid a $100 expunction fee for a Chapter 55A expunction petition filed from September 1, 2025, to September 16, 2025, they might come to the court requesting a refund. Or perhaps courts of record will choose to proactively issue refunds in the event they assessed any fees in this timeframe. The following table illustrates which petitions should have the $100 fee attached if TMCEC’s current interpretation holds true:
Heads up, court personnel: HB 2282 changes the warrant fee, but the increase doesn’t apply in every case starting September 1, 2025. The rules depend on both the date of offense and the timing of when the fee is assessed.
House Bill 2282 (89th Legislature) amends Article 102.011(a), Code of Criminal Procedure. It raises the reimbursement fee for executing or processing an arrest warrant, capias, or capias pro fine from $50 to $75. HB 2282 takes effect September 1, 2025.
Because this change involves court costs, its application depends on both the date of offense and the timing of assessment of the fee.
Key Points
Offenses before September 1, 2025
For offenses committed before 9/1/2025, the fee is permanently capped at $50, regardless of when the warrant or capias is issued, executed, or assessed.
Offenses on or after September 1, 2025
For offenses committed on or after 9/1/2025, the potential warrant or capias fee is $75.
But under Government Code § 51.607, no new or amended court cost may be assessed until January 1, 2026.
That means the $75 fee applies only when the fee is assessed on or after 1/1/2026.
Assessment may occur at different points
Most costs are assessed at the time of judgment. Fees are not assessed prior to judgment.
Some costs, like the fee for executing a capias pro fine, are assessed after judgment when the service actually occurs.
In both cases, the same effective-date rules apply:
Offense on or after 9/1/2025, and
Assessment of the fee (whether at judgment or later) on or after 1/1/2026.
Putting It Together
Offense Date
Fee Assessed (time of judgment or later)
Result
Before Sept 1, 2025
Any time
$50
On or after Sept 1, 2025
Fee assessed before Jan 1, 2026
$50
On or after Sept 1, 2025
Fee assessed on/after Jan 1, 2026
$75
Important Caveat
This analysis reflects the likely application of HB 2282 based on Article 102.011(a), C.C.P., and Government Code § 51.607. However, the Office of Court Administration (OCA) is responsible for publishing the official interpretation of cost changes in the Texas Register. Courts should look to OCA’s publication for the final word on implementation.
👉 Bottom line: Don’t assume the $75 fee applies automatically on September 1, 2025. The increase only takes effect when both the date of offense and the date of assessment of the fee meet the statutory requirements.
This year, the Texas Legislature passed S.B. 293, which overhauled Chapter 33 of the Government Code (“State Commission on Judicial Conduct”). One change that is likely to get municipal judges’ attention is new Section 33.022(b-2). This law requires the SCJC to provide notice to a judge within five business days of dismissing a complaint against him or her if it was dismissed due to being unfounded, frivolous, or having administrative deficiencies.
Until now, judges have typically been unaware of such dismissals: they usually occur soon after the SCJC receives the complaint and prior to a full investigation. And as one can imagine, such dismissals are common. No matter how ethical and law-abiding a judge is, there are individuals out there that will still file complaints against him or her. In the past, the judge would probably never know about such complaints. Now they will.
Therefore, all municipal judges should be prepared for the possibility of receiving increased communications from the SCJC related to dismissed complaints against them. If a judge receives notice of a dismissed complaint under Section 33.022(b-2), there is no need to contact SCJC or be alarmed. Ron Bennett, Chief Investigator at the SCJC, expects such notices to be commonplace moving forward.
If the SCJC has the judge’s e-mail address on file, any notice under Section 33.022(b-2) will be sent via e-mail as well as through the U.S. Postal Service. If there is no e-mail address on file, the notice will only be sent by snail mail.
To update their e-mail and/or mailing address with the SCJC, judges may e-mail information@scjc.texas.gov or call 512.463.5533.
On May 29, 2025, Governor Abbott signed House Bill 1950, introducing a new funding structure for municipal courts in cities under 100,000 in population. The bill went into effect immediately and creates the Municipal Court Building Security and Technology Fund, a consolidated account that simplifies how two key portions of the $14 Local Consolidated Fee (LCF) are managed.
What Changed?
Previously, the $14 LCF was divided among four different funds, two of which were:
Municipal Court Building Security Fund
Municipal Court Technology Fund
HB 1950 consolidates these two into a single fund for eligible cities. The consolidated fund can be used for the same purposes as the separate accounts: enhancing court security and upgrading court technology.
This gives local governments greater flexibility in managing limited resources while maintaining statutory intent.
What Hasn’t Changed?
The Juvenile Case Manager and Court Efficiency fund allocations under the $14 LCF are not affected by HB 1950.
A Practical Challenge: The Three-Fund Problem
While future LCF revenue will flow into the new consolidated fund, cities still must manage existing balances in the original security and technology funds under the prior legal restrictions.
This means that, at least for now, cities under 100,000 will need to maintain three separate accounts:
Security Fund (for pre-HB 1950 revenue)
Technology Fund (for pre-HB 1950 revenue)
Consolidated Security & Technology Fund (for post-HB 1950 revenue)
Money collected on or after May 29, 2025 must be deposited into the new Consolidated Security and Technology Fund. Money collected May 28, 2025 or earlier must be deposited into the pre-HB 1950 funds (#1 and #2 above) and are subject to the previous usage rules.
This transitional period may require updates to local financial policies, audit tracking, and fund expenditure practices.
Why It Matters
HB 1950 gives small and mid-sized cities the flexibility to use LCF funds where they’re most needed—security or technology—without the rigidity of two separate accounts. But until older funds are exhausted, cities will need to carefully manage multiple accounts to stay compliant.
Mark Goodner sat down with Madison Mondragon to discuss her recent arrival at TMCEC.
MG: Madison, welcome to the TMCEC team! You’ve now been with us for three weeks or so. What’s it been like getting started, and what have you been focusing on during your first days here?
MM: It has been a great time diving headfirst into work and learning all things municipal courts. Everyone on the team at TMCEC has graciously answered my questions and made me feel at home. Even in my short time at TMCEC, I have seen how the fundamental rights of citizens are implicated each day in municipal court. As I learn about the municipal courts, I appreciate how the system weighs efficiency, fairness, and meeting those interacting with the court where they are.
MG: You bring a great mix of legal experience and energy to our team. Tell us a little about your background—what kind of legal work have you done before coming to TMCEC?
MM: Before joining TMCEC I practiced family law here in Austin. It is a refreshing change of pace to work with our constituents as a resource rather than just while engaging in such tense litigation.
MG: You’re jumping in quickly! You’ll be presenting on Morning Coffee and at the Court Administrators and Prosecutors Seminar in just your first few weeks. What are you most excited to work on in your early time here?
MM: Before I began working at TMCEC, I did not appreciate how wide ranging the implications of municipal courts were. My first day at work, I opened a desk drawer and saw a pocket-sized Constitution of the United States. I thought to myself, ‘I won’t be looking at that but nice to have it around.’ It turns out that I was wrong, the next day we were reviewing the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth amendments. This week I have been tracking legislation in Texas. Each day I hear the legal calls from across the state and the ensuing office discussion analyzing issues from each angle. Getting to learn something new each day that helps serve our constituents has been exciting and I can’t wait to see what the future brings!
MG: We always love learning what makes our team tick beyond the resume. What would you like TMCEC’s constituents to know about you—whether professionally, personally, or both?
MM: I’m a seventh generation Texas with roots back to the Republic of Texas, but I have a deep connection to New Orleans, Louisiana where I attended law school. I’m a member of the Krewe of Cleopatra and this past year I took my six-month old son to his first Mardi Gras!
MG: Thanks for taking the time to chat with me for the blog. I’m sure our readers will look forward to meeting you in person at one of our upcoming programs!
Municipal courts in Texas are tasked with ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all defendants, particularly those unable to pay fines and court costs due to indigence. With the implementation of Chapter 45A of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the procedural safeguards for indigent defendants have been reorganized. This blog highlights some key protections in Chapter 45A and explains the legal distinction between waiving fines and waiving court costs.
Key Protections and Procedural Safeguards in Chapter 45A
Assessment of Indigence Under Art. 45A.252, when a defendant enters a plea in open court, courts must evaluate the defendant’s financial situation to determine their ability to pay fines and court costs. This step allows for a meaningful sentence that is tailored to the individual case.
Community Service as an Alternative Courts may permit defendants with insufficient resources or income to discharge fines and court costs through community service under Art. 45A.254.
Waiver of Fines and Costs Courts have the authority to waive fines and court costs for defendants under specific conditions:
Fines: Waiving fines requires a finding that the defendant is indigent and that other alternatives, such as community service, would impose an undue hardship (Art. 45A.257(a)).
Court Costs: Waiving court costs does not require a finding of undue hardship. Courts may waive court costs based solely on indigence (or if the defendant was a child at the time of the offense) (Art. 45A.257(c)).
Prohibition Against Incarceration for Nonpayment Under Art. 45A.261, a court cannot confine a defendant in jail after failure to pay fines or costs unless, after notice and hearing, it determines a defendant is not indigent and also failed to make a good faith effort to discharge the sentence. Indigent defendants can only be confined if they fail to make a good faith effort to discharge through community service AND the court finds that they could have done so without experiencing any undue hardship. This follow the principle of Bearden v. Georgia that the nonpayment (or failure to discharge) must be willful before incarceration is a possibility.
Special Provisions for Juveniles Under Art. 45A.459, courts may provide additional flexibility for juveniles, such as educational programs or community service to discharge fines and costs, instead of monetary penalties.
Join TMCEC’s Virtual Clinic: Fines, Fees, and Costs Revisited
To learn more about these protections and how to apply them in practice, register for TMCEC’s 4-Hour Virtual Clinic: Fines, Fees, and Costs Revisited, taking place on Wednesday, January 29, 2025, from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m.
This clinic will cover the foundational principles from the 2017 Special Topic Session and explore key updates from SB 1913 and HB 351, which transformed how courts address indigence and alternative sentencing.
How to Register: Visit register.tmcec.com, log in, and select the virtual clinic under “Live Courses.” Seats are limited, so sign up today!
Let TMCEC help you navigate the evolving landscape of fines, fees, and costs. We look forward to seeing you online!
January 1, 2025 will be here before we know it. By that date, a youth diversion plan must be adopted by each municipal court in Texas. It must be a written plan that describes the types of strategies that will be used to implement youth diversion, and it must be maintained on file for public inspection. It should be noted that the plan is NOT a limitation on what can be a part of a diversion agreement.
Municipal court personnel should check out TMCEC Youth Diversion page. There, you will find many valuable resources including a checklist, a flowchart, sample forms, and multiple sample diversion plans.
Each court is different. The diversion plan for your court should be tailored to your specific needs, resources, and capabilities. Article 45.306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays out the general requirements of a diversion plan. You might consider some of the elements listed below for inclusion in your plan.
(1) Purpose and Goals
Clear statement of the purpose of the plan (e.g., reducing recidivism, improving youth outcomes)
Measurable objectives that align with community safety and youth accountability
(2) Eligibility Criteria
Eligible child definition
Eligible offenses
Exclusions
(3) Diversion Strategies
List of available strategies (e.g., counseling, community service, educational programs)
Flexibility to customize strategies based on individual cases and needs
Guidelines for implementing both intermediate and judicial diversion
(4) Role of the Youth Diversion Coordinator
Designation of coordinator(s) responsible for managing the diversion program
Duties (e.g., eligibility checks, monitoring compliance, liaising with parents/guardians)
(5) Consent and Agreement Protocols
Process for obtaining consent from the child and parent/guardian
Other required steps (e.g., notification of rights)
(6) Confidentiality Measures
Protocols for handling sensitive information and ensuring records remain confidential
Procedures for expunging records when the child turns 18
(7) Collaboration and Partnerships
Potential partnerships with schools, local mental health agencies, and other community resources
Provisions for entering into Interlocal Agreements to share resources and expand diversion options
(8) Funding and Resources
Identification of funding sources (e.g., Local Youth Diversion Fund, administrative fees)
Plan for resource allocation to support diversion activities (e.g., staff training, service providers)
(9) Evaluation and Monitoring
Metrics for tracking success (e.g., compliance rates, recidivism)
Periodic review process to assess program effectiveness and make adjustments
Download the word document below for a full resource of elements and sample language for each one.
Full Court Press 