A safe and pleasant community takes a lot of work by many different people. Elected officials set policy. City staff turn that policy into practice. Police officers, code enforcement officers, animal control officers, and others work directly with the public. City attorneys provide legal guidance. And municipal courts are called upon to fairly and independently resolve the cases that result.
Each has a different role—but their work often intersects.
That is the idea behind **C3: Councils, Courts, and Cities**, TMCEC’s public information and education initiative designed to help bridge the information gap between city halls and municipal courts.
Over the years, C3 has brought municipal officials together through expositions, showcases, publications, and roundtable discussions on issues of shared concern. One of those programs was the 2022 C3 Ordinances Showcase, which explored the important—and sometimes complicated—ways that local ordinances connect policymaking, enforcement, prosecution, and the courts.
On Wednesday, August 12, we’re revisiting some of the top-rated programs from that showcase during our 4-Hour Virtual Clinic: C3 – Ordinances Revisited.
The live online program will feature updated discussions of case law, nuisances, animal control issues, and ethics from Ryan Kellus Turner, Robby Chapman, Victor Flores, and Pam Liston.
And judging from the response, these conversations still matter: more than 140 participants have already registered.
Check out the video below for a quick look at C3: Ordinances Revisited. If you haven’t registered, there’s still time to join us—and we encourage municipal court personnel to share the program with their colleagues throughout city government.
Before the First Court Setting
Many of the most consequential decisions in a criminal case occur long before the first trial setting, plea hearing, or motion hearing.
A magistrate may be called upon to determine probable cause, advise a defendant of constitutional rights, consider issues related to bail, review criminal history information, and ensure that statutory requirements are satisfied. These decisions affect defendants, victims, law enforcement agencies, courts, and communities alike.
While judges perform the judicial functions of magistration, they are rarely alone in the process. Court personnel often play important roles in reporting, recordkeeping, communication, and compliance. From Public Safety Reporting System requirements to coordination with law enforcement and other agencies, magistrate duties frequently involve a team effort.
That is why TMCEC’s upcoming 4-Hour Virtual Clinic, Magistrate Duties: Critical Decisions in a Changing Landscape, is designed for all municipal court personnel.
Join us on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, as faculty explore probable cause determinations, bail setting, Public Safety Reporting System updates, denial of bail, post-bail processes, and recent developments.
Participants may earn:
• 4 hours Judicial Education
• 4 hours Clerk Certification Credit
• 3.25 hours CLE (including 1 hour ethics)
• Credit toward the magistrate duties continuing education requirement under Art. 17.024, C.C.P.
Registration is open now at register.tmcec.com. $100 Registration. $50 CLE.
Magistration: The Law Changes. The Duty Remains.
Municipal judges are often the face of magistration, but they are rarely the only people involved in the process.
From probable cause determinations and bail decisions to Public Safety Reporting System requirements and post-bail procedures, magistration requires coordination among judges, clerks, court administrators, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and others. As statutes evolve and courts continue to interpret constitutional requirements, ensuring compliance often becomes a team effort.
Court personnel may assist with reporting magistrate actions, reviewing criminal history information, accessing or entering information into the Public Safety Reporting System, preparing and maintaining records, and facilitating communication between the court, defendants, victims, law enforcement, and other agencies. While the specific responsibilities vary from court to court, the importance of understanding the underlying legal framework remains constant.
Recent legislative changes, ongoing discussions regarding bail practices, and updates to reporting requirements continue to shape the landscape in which magistrates and court personnel operate. The law changes. The duty remains.
Join TMCEC on June 17, 2026, for our next 4-Hour Virtual Clinic: Magistrate Duties: Critical Decisions in a Changing Landscape. This live virtual clinic will explore probable cause determinations, bail setting, denial of bail, Public Safety Reporting System updates, and recent legal developments affecting magistrates and municipal courts across Texas.
The clinic qualifies for:
* 4 hours Judicial Education
* 4 hours Clerk Certification Credit
* 3.25 hours CLE (including 1 hour ethics)
* The two-hour magistrate duties continuing education requirement in every biennium under Art. 17.024, C.C.P.
Whether you serve as a judge, clerk, court administrator, or prosecutor, this clinic offers practical guidance on one of the most important functions performed by Texas courts.
Registration is now open at register.tmcec.com.
Deadline Approaching for TMCEC’s Final Prosecutors Seminar of the Year!
Calling all municipal prosecutors and city attorneys! Registration is still open for our second and final Prosecutors Seminar for the academic year.
June 2–4, 2026, at the Hyatt Regency Conroe for three days of practical, courtroom-focused training built specifically for municipal prosecution practice. Courses this year will include Legislative Updates, Case Law & AG Opinion Updates, Autonomous Vehicles, Administrative Search Warrants, Prosecuting Corporate Defendants, Nuisance Abatement & Code Enforcement, Human Trafficking, and Trial Strategies.
By attending, participants can earn 14.5 hours of CLE (with 2 hours of ethics included).
Don’t forget, TMCEC’s Prosecutor’s Professionalism program that recognizes prosecutors who obtain specialized municipal court-focused training though TMCEC. After attending the Prosecutors Seminar, a participant would only need to attend 4 hours of education either with TMCEC webinars, in-person, or virtual training.
Registration: $275 (CLE included).
Special TMCEC room rate available June 2 and 3 for $128/night. Rooming is subject to availability and going fast.
Register today at register.tmcec.com.
Biannually, Biennially, and Finally Some Clarity: Rule 7.1 Gets an Update
By Madison Mondragon
Three things in life are certain: death, taxes, and confusion over the word “biannually.” For courts across Texas, that confusion became very real when Rule 7.1 of the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration (TRJA) required the distribution of a court confidentiality policy “biannually.”
On February 20, 2024, the Court issued its final approved amendments to the TRJA. Among them, Rule 7.1 required all courts in the state to adopt a court confidentiality policy by May 1, 2024. The rule also established requirements for the policy’s contents, staff training, and how often the policy must be distributed to court personnel.
One provision raised an immediate question: Rule 7.1, which required courts to “provide the policy to all existing court staff at least biannually.” As we noted at the time, the dictionary definition of “biannually” is twice a year, but there are times where “biannually” is used to mean every other year (despite there being a separate word for this: biennially). This unsurprisingly led to confusion among courts. And this distinction matters when you are responsible for compliance.
Now, a little over two years later, we have clarity. The Supreme Court of Texas has amended Rule 7.1(c)(2) to remove the word “biannually” and specify that courts must “provide the policy to all existing court staff at least once every other year.”
With that clarification in mind, now is a good time to check your compliance. If your court has not distributed its confidentiality policy since May 1, 2024, it may be time to do so.
Tips for Effective Charging: Less Is More
When it comes to drafting complaints in municipal court, less is often more. Under Article 45A.101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a complaint must include a statement that the accused committed an offense. But that doesn’t mean it needs extra details beyond what’s required to establish the elements of the offense.
In fact, including too much can make the State’s job harder at trial—even when those details were meant to be helpful.
Example: Speeding Charges
Speeding is one of the most common charges in municipal court. But it’s also where complaints can get tripped up by unnecessary specifics.
Consider this:
The Defendant did then and there operate a motor vehicle at a speed of 62 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone.
If the complaint includes a specific speed, the State will likely need to prove that exact speed at trial. If the evidence instead supports 58 mph, the defense may argue that the State hasn’t proven the offense as charged. The more specific the complaint, the less room for error the State has in court.
When Specifics Aren’t Required
For offenses where speed is not an element—such as unlawfully passing a school bus—mentioning how fast the defendant was driving is usually unnecessary. Including it may not materially increase the State’s burden, but it’s also unlikely to strengthen the case. At best, it’s extra. At worst, it creates confusion about what must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why It Matters
Complaints are not storytelling devices—they’re charging documents. Extra details don’t make them more official; they just open the door to unintended legal consequences.
Key Takeaways:
Stick to the statutory elements of the offense.
Avoid including details unless the law requires it.
Be accurate—you’ll likely have to prove what you write.
Don’t add unnecessary facts that complicate proof.
Clear, concise complaints make for a smoother trial, a clearer job for judges and juries, and a stronger path to conviction.
Surplusage and Variances: Navigating the Materiality Test under Gollihar
by Ned Minevitz and Madison Mondragon
Must Extra Information in a Complaint be Proven at Trial?
Article 45A.101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the necessary information to include when drafting a sufficient complaint to initiate criminal proceedings in municipal court. This blog will focus on Article 45A.101(a)(4), which requires either a statement that the accused has committed an offense or that there is good reason to believe, and the affiant does believe, that the accused has committed an offense.
In a Complaint, Less is More
To satisfy Article 45A.101(a)(4), simply stating the statutory elements of the offense alleged is sufficient. There is no need to include specific details related to how the elements were met. For example, if the State charged a person with speeding under Section 545.351 of the Transportation Code, the complaint should convey that the person committed each element by tracking the exact language of Section 545.351, such as “[drove] a vehicle at a speed greater than [was] reasonable and prudent under the conditions….” The precise speed that the vehicle was allegedly travelling might be relevant at trial, but it is not an element and, therefore, should not be included in the complaint.
There may be a temptation to emphasize the severity of an alleged offense by including additional details. However, unnecessary details will create additional hurdles that the State would likely need to confront at trial. For example, would the State now need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was traveling at the exact speed alleged in the complaint?
Collins, Surplusage, and Variances
Including the alleged miles per hour traveled is an example of “surplusage.” Surplusage is unnecessary or extra language. Surplusage is often a description of evidence that the State plans to use at trial. When there is a difference between what is in the charging instrument and what is ultimately proven at trial, it is called a variance. In 1973, the Court of Criminal Appeals established a rule about surplusage: if information included in the complaint was “descriptive of that which is legally essential to charge a crime it must [have been] proven as alleged, even though needlessly stated.” Collins v. State, 500 S.W.2d 168 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973).
Gollihar and Materiality
In 2001, the Court overturned the rule laid out in Collins. In Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), a man was convicted of stealing a go-cart. In the charging instrument, the State alleged that the stolen go-cart’s model number was 136202. At trial, the evidence showed that the model number was actually 136203. Here, the complaint contained both surplusage and variance. The court of appeals ordered an acquittal because, under Collins, even though the state proved all the elements of the offense, the state did not prove that the defendant stole a go-cart with model number 136202.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and set out a new test: materiality. The Court advanced a two-factor test to determine if a variance between what is in the charging instrument and what is proven at trial is material: (1) whether the charging instrument informs the defendant of the charge against him sufficiently to allow him to prepare an adequate defense at trial and (2) whether the charging instrument would subject the accused to the risk of being later prosecuted for the same crime. In Gollihar, the Court concluded that the incorrect model number did not impair the defendant’s ability to prepare his defense, which did not depend on the model number alleged. Furthermore, the variance created no risk of double jeopardy. Because the variance was immaterial, the original conviction was reinstated.
Conclusion
When looking at our earlier hypothetical, must the State prove the exact speed that the defendant was driving as listed in the complaint? Because of the Gollihar test’s subjective, case-by-case nature, it depends. The answer would likely hinge on the specific nature of the accused’s defense. If the defendant had prepared his defense by seeking to rebut the exact speed alleged in the complaint, the State would likely need to prove the exact speed alleged under Gollihar. But if the defendant argues that he was not even driving a car that day, the State might not need to prove the exact speed alleged. Fortunately, well-drafted complaints that do not include unnecessary information are not subject to the Gollihar test.
Check back tomorrow for some Tips for Effective Charging!
Reporting Juror Disqualification for Misdemeanor Theft Convictions
by
Ned Minevitz and Leandra Quick
Since 2023, Section 62.115(d) of the Government Code has required clerks to report misdemeanor theft convictions to the Secretary of State (SOS) for the purposes of juror disqualification. As noted on Page 7-20 of TMCEC’s Level 1 Study Guide, however, due to security reasons regarding the use of a statewide database, municipal court clerks must report such convictions to the county where the court is located—not directly to the Secretary of State. The county then reports to the SOS. This directive is not in the Government Code, but it has been confirmed by the SOS.
But this begs an important question: where or to whom in the county should municipal courts send this report? The Government Code does not tell us. And to complicate matters further, municipal court clerks from various counties all report doing it differently. One municipal court sends the list to the County Clerk while another court stated that the County Clerk will not accept it so they send it to the Voter Registrar. Yet another court reports that their practice is to send it to the District Clerk.
Bottom line? Communicate, communicate, communicate. If you do not have an established practice in place, set up a meeting with county officials to determine where they want the report sent. Document your communications, as well as reports sent, to avoid any notion that your municipal court is not complying with Section 62.115(d).
Centers of Excellence: Recognizing Excellence in Texas Courts
by Madison Mondragon
Texas courts work every day to ensure the fair, timely, and efficient administration of justice. To support and recognize these efforts, the Texas Judicial Council created the Centers of Excellence Program. Centers of Excellence is a statewide initiative designed to help courts assess their administrative practices, strengthen performance, and demonstrate their commitment to serving the public.
The Centers of Excellence Program is administered by the Office of Court Administration (OCA) and is open to courts at every level of the Texas judiciary, including municipal courts. The program provides a structured process for courts to evaluate their operations and implement improvements that support effective court administration. Importantly, the program remains voluntary, allowing courts to participate if and when they are ready to evaluate their practices and pursue recognition..
Participating courts complete four key phases:
1. Outreach and Review – After contacting the OCA, courts create a Court Review by evaluating their current practices and performance and supporting their assessment with documentation and reporting.
2. Implementation – Following the Court Review, the OCA will prepare and present a Court Profile which highlights each court’s strength and identifies areas for improvement. Using the Court Profile, each court will begin working on their performance areas and collecting key documents.
3. Assessment – As the court works through implementation it will inevitably generate or surface documents which outline court processes and procedures like case management plans, communications plans, or employee codes of conduct. The OCA reviews these reports and follows up with a site visit.
4. Nomination and Recognition – Following the onsite, OCA then evaluates the whole process from start to finish with an eye on key changes made across all performance and compliance areas and completes a nomination report. This nomination report highlights the work the work each court puts into the process as well as their ongoing pursuit of excellence. Once the report is complete, the court may be submitted to the Texas Judicial Council to be nominated as a Judicial Center of Excellence.
Courts recognized under the program are reassessed periodically to support continuous improvement.
The program focuses on four key areas of court performance areas:
● Governance – maintaining transparency, accountability, and sound leadership
● Court Operations – effectively managing court services and administration
● Caseflow Management – using data to resolve cases efficiently and fairly
● Access and Fairness – ensuring court processes are understandable and accessible
Additionally, the program evaluates compliance in five primary areas:
● Judicial Reporting Requirements – submitting required reports to the Office of Court Administration, including court activity reports and appointments and fees reports.
● Court Security Reporting – ensuring courthouse security committees are established and court security incident reports are submitted as required.
● Indigent Defense Requirements – implementing and coordinating with the county’s indigent defense plan..
● Fines and Fees – complying with statutory requirements for collecting fines and fees, including notice requirements, determining ability to pay, and providing alternatives to payment when needed.
● Guardianship Abuse, Fraud, and Exploitation – maintaining appointment lists and rotation systems for court appointments and participating in guardianship compliance efforts when applicable.
Programs like Centers of Excellence highlight the important work courts already do while providing tools for continuous improvement. By encouraging courts to review their operations, strengthen compliance with administrative requirements, and adopt best practices, the initiative supports a more effective and accessible judicial system for all Texans.
For additional information, courts should review information about the program on the Centers of Excellence page or by emailing COE@txcourts.gov.
The Power of 4: Judicial Education Pathways (2026)
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.
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.
For more information, check out TMCEC’s Judicial Education FAQ page.
Full Court Press 