On August 25, 2023, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a Rules Advisory that it had preliminarily approved a change to Rule 7 of the Rules of Judicial Administration. This rule change will affect municipal courts, if enacted in the current form. The advisory also invited public comment, and the public comment period ends February 1, 2024. The expected effective date of the rule is March 1, 2024. Once effective, the rule will require courts to adopt confidentiality policies by May 1, 2024
In its current form, the rule change creates a new Rule 7.1. The current text of Rule 7 regarding District and County courts becomes Rule 7.2.
The new Rule 7.1 would require all courts, including municipal courts, to adopt a policy governing court confidentiality. The policy would be required to conform to eight conditions defining the scope of the policy, its parameters, and the potential penalties for violation of the policy. All court staff would be required to acknowledge receipt of the policy in writing. All existing staff must receive the policy and training on it by May 1, and receive the policy at least biannually thereafter. Any new staff must receive the policy and training before beginning any substantive work for the court.
The Rules Advisory linked above includes a four-page sample policy which the Supreme Court has drafted to meet all the requirements of the Rule. Because this policy is drafted for all courts, it does not mention the municipal-court-specific confidentiality provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 45.0217/45A.462, 45.0218/45A.055, and 45.313. A municipal court may choose to add language about these articles to, for example, the definition of confidential information in the court’s policy.
Although the rule has preliminary approval, courts are still invited to comment until February 1. After March 1, the Supreme Court will announce the rule in its final form on its Rules Advisory webpage.
Daylight savings time has come around again. Communities across Texas have kicked off programs that coincide with daylight savings to encourage homeowners to check the batteries in their smoke alarms. For municipal courts, a similar thing happens every summer of an odd-numbered year: time to reexamine any city charters, ordinances, and procedures related to the municipal court to ensure compliance with a new batch of laws.
For example, effective September 1, 2023, the Legislature amended Section 61.001(a) of the Texas Government Code to raise the juror reimbursement rate from $6 per day to $20 per day. See H.B. 3474 (2023). Subsection (c), however, was unchanged, which provides that jurors in municipal court are not entitled to reimbursement. Municipalities may nonetheless elect to provide jury reimbursement and determine the amount.
Practically speaking, there are three approaches a municipality may take when it comes to juror reimbursement: pay nothing, pay a fixed amount, or pay an amount equal to the rate in the Government Code. If a city ordinance or resolution is based on either of the first two methods, no changes are needed. However, if it is based on the third method, the city will either need to pay the $20 per day or modify the ordinance.
Remember, the best time to familiarize yourself with the city’s court-related ordinances was when they passed. The second-best time is now.
On November 7, 2023, Texans voted on 14 proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution. The only amendment voters rejected was Proposition 13, which would have, among other things, increased the mandatory retirement age for certain state judges from 75 to 79. This age requirement, which is provided in Section 1-a(1), Article V of the Texas Constitution, was adopted in 1965. Proposition 13 made the ballot through House Joint Resolution 107 (2023), which passed both the House and Senate.
Publicity surrounding Proposition 13 has led some to question whether Section 1-a(1)’s mandatory retirement provision applies to municipal judges. Section 1-a(1) provides that it applies to “Justices and Judges of the Appellate Courts and District and Criminal District Courts.” Because municipal court judges do not fit this criteria, Section 1-a(1)’s age requirements do not apply to municipal judges. In other words, there is no statewide mandatory retirement age for municipal judges in Texas. If Proposition 13 had passed, it would not have impacted municipal judges.
Next week is Municipal Courts Week! The 88th Texas Legislature designated the first week of November as Municipal Courts Week each year from 2023 through 2032 via House Concurrent Resolution 75. “First Week” means the first full Monday through Friday of November. This year, that’s November 6-10.
TMCEC General Counsel and Director of Education Mark Goodner sat down with Ned Minevitz and Liz De La Garza to discuss what cities are doing and can do for this event.
Mark Goodner (MG): Good afternoon, Ned and Liz. It’s hard to believe that it’s already been well over a month since we chatted about Municipal Courts Week on our webinar (Municipal Courts Week, H.C.R. 75, and Community Engagement) https://tmcec.brightspace.com/d2l/home/6914). Now, Municipal Courts Week is next week! What have you seen and heard about what municipal courts are doing next week to mark the occasion?
Ned Minevitz (NM): Hello, Mark. That was a fun webinar! This year a lot of mayors have already passed a resolution officially designating November 6-10 as Municipal Courts Week. I have also seen many courts promoting Municipal Courts Week through social media to inform the public about any open events. Municipal Courts Week is a perfect time for judges and court staff to engage with members of their communities in a positive way.
Liz De La Garza (LDLG): Hey Mark! We always have an enjoyable time talking about what courts can do to reach out to their communities, and Municipal Courts Week is a great time to do this! Courts have responded to this opportunity by contacting us and letting us help them find ways to celebrate their courts! Courts are opening their doors to their communities with open houses and honoring the hard work of their staffs with breakfasts and little tokens of appreciation.
MG: I’m glad you mentioned passing a local resolution and/or proclamation. I think that’s a great and “official” option to celebrate courts. We even have a sample template (see link below) to assist cities that would like to do that. Additionally, we have a press release template that cities can use to report to local media about Municipal Courts Week events. Are there any other resources available that could help courts with last-minute plans?
LDLG: Courts using their local papers and social media to announce Municipal Court Week to their communities is a great idea! Local papers are always looking for ways to highlight their cities. The demanding work that city staff and municipal courts do daily is often unheralded. Putting an article in the community paper is an awesome way to shed light on this important work! Social media is another even quicker way to do this same thing, and its effect is immediate! Most citizens under the age of 40 usually do not read the local paper in its hard form, but they will read that exact same news presented on an online version!
NM: If a court has never celebrated Municipal Courts Week but would like to, they can give me a call at 512-320-8274 and I am happy to assist in coming up with a plan that could be implemented quickly and with relative ease. While it is too late to order physical traffic safety materials from TMCEC, check out TMCEC’s Municipal Courts Week and Traffic Safety Resources webpages for inspiration and ideas on how to make the most of Municipal Courts Week. The proclamation and press release templates you referenced are both available on the Municipal Courts Week webpage.
MG: Thank you. Municipal Courts Week is a great opportunity to show appreciation to court staff as well as to host a public event. Are there any events from years past that stick out in your mind as being especially effective or memorable?
NM: Over the years a few courts have hosted a traffic safety coloring contest for kids. I have always found this super effective because the children not only have a blast, but they also think about safe practices such as wearing a seatbelt and looking both ways before crossing the street. It also does not hit the city’s pocketbook very hard: all that is needed is some paper and crayons! Another place to see some of the exemplary events courts have recently hosted is TMCEC’s 2023 Best Practices Brochure.
LDLG: As a retired teacher, I know how important even little accolades are for staff, especially workers who do important, yet not very visible, work that keeps their cities safe and humming along. We saw one city where the administrative staff put a little something (a small candy bar or a small funny gift) with an encouraging note on each person’s desk every morning of Municipal Courts Week. At the end of the week, they hosted a breakfast where staff were celebrated as individuals and as a team. Seeing the pictures of the breakfast was great – everyone looked so happy and collegial. A little encouragement goes a long way in keeping staff at their best!
MG: I should also mention that this could be a chance to connect with and inform city hall, as well. Our C3 public information and education campaign is designed to fill the information gap between city halls and municipal courts in Texas. Municipal Court personnel should check out issues of The Brief available online as well as videos such as The Role of Municipal Court in City Government. Thanks for your time, Ned and Liz!
Please share in a comment below what you plan to do for Municipal Courts Week!
Enforcing child custody orders is a perennial problem for the government. There are countless horror stories of children spirited away by one parent, while the other called desperately for police intervention. There is a new tool for cities in this ongoing struggle, in the form of a new enforcement mechanism. Although cities may feel compelled to use this mechanism, its use falls well outside the municipal courts’ jurisdiction.
H.B. 969
In the 88th Legislature, House Bill 969 added a Subchapter to Chapter 157 of the Family Code. The relevant text of this new subchapter comprises only thirty-three words, and it took effect on September 1, 2023. Below is the entire text of that new Subchapter.
“Section 157.551. A municipality or county in this state may adopt an ordinance or order that imposes a civil penalty of not more than $500 for engaging in conduct described by Section 25.03, Penal Code.”
It is possible for a municipality to pass an ordinance under this statute and attempt to enforce the ordinance in the court. Courts should be aware of this attempt and understand the jurisdictional issues which preclude such cases being filed in municipal courts.
The referenced Section 25.03 of the Penal Code describes the criminal offense of Interference with Child Custody. The statute prohibits taking or retaining a child under age 18, including removal from the county, when the person knows this violates the express terms of a judgment or order disposing of child custody. The prohibited conduct constitutes a state jail felony. There is no provision in law to allow prosecution of this criminal offense (or any state jail felony) in municipal court. While that does not, in itself, preclude municipal courts from being given jurisdiction over a separate civil offense, it would be at least a point to begin finding jurisdiction.
Municipal Court Jurisdiction
Municipal Courts’ jurisdiction, like all courts in Texas, is created and defined by the Constitution and Statutes. Because Municipal Courts are statutorily created, we must look to the statutes for grants of jurisdiction.
In the Government Code, Section 29.003, Municipal Courts are granted exclusive original jurisdiction within the territorial limits over criminal cases arising under municipal ordinances. Municipal courts have concurrent jurisdiction with Justice Courts over fine only and non-jailable alcohol misdemeanors within the territorial limits of the municipality.
A civil penalty standing alone is not a criminal offense. A criminal offense may have a civil penalty attached (as in the case of restitution), but municipal courts have no jurisdiction over the underlying criminal offense, nor any general civil jurisdiction.
In Section 27.031 of the Government Code, Justice Courts are granted jurisdiction over “civil matters in which exclusive jurisdiction is not in the district or county court in which the amount in controversy is not more than $20,000, exclusive of interest.” This civil jurisdiction provision is not granted to municipal courts, and still may be insufficient on its own to grant jurisdiction over a civil penalty, issued by ordinance, to a Justice court.
Municipal courts have civil jurisdiction only where specifically granted. For example, under Government Code Section 29.003, municipal courts have jurisdiction over bonds and bond forfeitures. Under Section 30.00005, municipal courts of record may be granted civil jurisdiction to enforce substandard and dangerous building ordinances and junk vehicles.
There is also a provision in that statute giving municipal courts of record under an enabling ordinance concurrent jurisdiction with district courts, but only for purposes of enforcing municipal ordinances under Chapter 54. Even with this enabling ordinance, municipal courts of record have no authority to enforce other civil penalties.
SAPCR Limitations
Further, this new subchapter is in the Family Code, Chapter 157. That chapter applies to Suits Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCRs). SAPCRs can be brought only in district courts, juvenile courts having the same jurisdiction as a district court, or other courts expressly given jurisdiction of a SAPCR, per the Family Code, Sec. 101.008. A statute could certainly give jurisdiction in SAPCRs to municipal courts. There is no indication that the new statute does so.
By the same token, there is no rule that a statute in Chapter 157 must only apply to SAPCRs and the courts that enforce them. The legislature could certainly put any statute they chose into any chapter. If the text of the statutes and the clear meaning of the language used is not ambiguous and does not create an absurd result, the statute must be interpreted outside the context of surrounding statutes.
The language here is not ambiguous. This statute allows a municipality or county to create a civil penalty. This statute also does not create an absurd result. Although a municipality may not enforce this civil penalty in municipal court, there is no reason it could not be enforced in another court. District Courts, Family Courts, and County Courts at law may have jurisdiction to enforce these penalties. Even Justice Courts may have jurisdiction to enforce these civil penalties, under the general grant of civil jurisdiction involving less than $20,000.
Other Civil Examples
This is not the only such civil penalty, created by ordinance, but not enforceable in municipal court. For example, the civil penalty for violation of a plat restriction under Local Government Code Section 212.156 cannot be pursued in municipal court. Conversely, the civil penalties in Local Government Code Section 54.017 and 214.0015 can only be assessed in municipal courts of record with an enabling ordinance, because there is a specific grant of civil jurisdiction in Section 30.00005 of the Government Code.
In short, although the civil penalty created in the new Family Code Section 157.551 is created by ordinance and is likely intended as an aid to enforcement of child custody orders, municipal courts do not have jurisdiction to enforce these penalties.
Today marks the last day of the 2022-2023 Academic Year for judges to complete their required judicial education.
On March 30, 2020, the Court of Criminal Appeals issued an emergency order suspending all sections of the Rules of Judicial Education that require live, continuous hours of judicial education that would prevent a judge from completing his or her hours during the disaster. Governor Abbott did not renew the disaster declaration on June 15, 2023. Therefore, the emergency order suspending portions of the Rules of Judicial Education expired July 15, 2023. However, to promote certainty for judges planning their education hours, the Municipal Courts Education Committee passed a resolution providing that the status of the Rules of Education in effect on September 1st shall remain in effect through August 31, 2023.
Typically, each judge would need to satisfy at least eight of the required 16 hours (or all 16 for a judge completing a first or second year of education) through live, continuous training. Now, however, all 16 hours can be completed by electronic means through the end of this academic year. That’s today.
Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct was recently updated to specify that judges must meet all judicial education requirements set forth in governing statues or rules. Additionally, the Rules of Judicial Education require the Education Committee to submit the names of nonconforming judges to the Commission of Judicial Conduct by November 1.
TMCEC currently offers dozens of webinars on demand. Viewing webinars is a permissible method to satisfy your hours while the emergency order is in effect.
Finally, if illness or emergency is preventing you from completing the educational requirements this year, keep in mind that you may request a waiver (but the waiver will not be considered until late September 2023). If you have completed other relevant CLE or judicial education, you may submit an Intent to Opt Out form or request flex-time credit if you have completed at least two years of training and did not opt out of TMCEC training last year. For more information, see the Opt Outs & Waivers and Judicial Flex Time pages on the TMCEC website.
Checking the Number of Hours on Your Transcript
To check the current number of hours on your transcript, log into your registration account and click on the Transcript/Events tab, then click on the Transcript button. This is the same transcript that TMCEC staff would see. Count the hours earned between 9/1/2022 and 8/31/2023.
Refreshing and Updating Your Transcript
If you are certain you completed one or more webinar that is not reflected on your transcript and are certain you completed the evaluation and record of attendance, then clicking on the Update Completed Courses button while on the OLC tab will update your transcript. See the button in the bottom right corner of the screen grab below:
TMCEC is committed to assisting you with your educational requirements this year, and we are happy to answer your questions regarding your judicial hours via phone or email.
Recently, the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) announced changes related to their Driver Education & Safety website and course certificates. These changes are significant to municipal courts wishing to inform defendants where they can find approved driving safety courses (DSC) as well as to municipal courts needing to verify DSC course completion for the purposes of Art. 45.051(b-1)(2) or 45.0511 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Searching for Approved DSC Providers
Effective already, to search for approved DSC providers in your area:
Click “License Search” on the right side of the page
Click “Driving Safety Providers” on the dropdown menu
Click “license search” under Search the License Database
Select “Search by City for a Specified License Type”
Select “Driving Safety Provider” from the dropdown menu
Input a city name
As of June 16, 2023, “not all TDLR licensees are available through [the] license search.” It is unknown when all licensees will be available.
New DSC Completion Certificates & Validation Process
Effective June 5, 2023, course providers are required to use a new certificate of completion template that (1) does not list the school or instructor and (2) includes the new TDLR logo. Course providers must issue their own Uniform Certificates of Course Completion that comply with the new rules. To validate a certificate:
Click “Driving Safety” on the right side of the page
Click “Validate a Course Certificate” from the dropdown menu
If you have questions for TDLR about any of the recent changes related to court-ordered courses, TDLR asks that you contact the Education & Examination Division.
Naff v. State, 946 S.W.2d 529, decided May 15, 1997, is a useful case for municipal court practitioners because it addresses three common arguments and spells out clear legal reasons for its decision. Although not binding statewide authority, the Naff opinion relies heavily on Texas Court of Criminal Appeals authority and uses clear and comprehensible language.
This case started like many in municipal court: David Allen Naff was convicted and fined for four traffic offenses in municipal court and assessed fines and costs of more than $1,200. The offenses included fail to maintain financial responsibility, no driver’s license, no motor vehicle registration, and no motor vehicle inspection (which is no longer a separate offense in Texas). He appealed to the county court at law in Wichita County, where the court affirmed all four convictions and the fine amounts. Naff then appealed to the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth.
At the second court of appeals, Naff argued three points: the complaints, because they were not signed by a person with personal knowledge of the underlying facts, were deficient; the prosecution was illegal because it was conducted by a municipal court prosecutor (and city attorney) rather than by the County Attorney as required by the Texas Constitution, article V, section 21; and that regulation of his person or his vehicle while on public roadways was a violation of his right to travel.
The court held that, because personal knowledge is not listed as a requirement in the statutes prescribing the form of complaints, it is not necessary. An affiant is permitted to base the accusations in a complaint on information derived from a police report.
The court held that prosecution in municipal court by a municipal prosecutor is also not legal error. Article V, section 21 states that all prosecutions in district and inferior courts shall be conducted in counties which do not elect a district attorney. Wichita county does, in fact, have a district attorney. The district attorney’s jurisdiction is defined by statute, and so may be delegated to other attorneys, as has been done in municipal courts.
Finally, the court held that reasonable regulation of Naff’s traveling is not an infringement of his right to travel, but is rather a reasonable regulation of the privilege to drive an automobile on a Texas highway. Regulating licensing and registration laws and requiring proof of financial responsibility are a proper subject of police power, and not a denial of due process.
In 2021, the 87th Regular Legislature passed House Bill 1560 (H.B. 1560), which made numerous changes regarding the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR), alcohol and drug programs, as well as driving safety courses.
In yesterday’s blog entry, we discussed what alcohol and drug education will look like in a post-DADAP world. Today, let’s examine the changes to the Deferred Disposition statute (Art. 45.051, C.C.P.) that courts should be mindful of as they go into effect on June 1, 2023. These statutory amendments have been a point of confusion—most likely because of the repeated usage of the phrase “younger than 25 years of age.”
Section 5.58 of H.B. 1560 is included below in its entirety, which shows all the changed language of Article 45.051(b-1)—part of the Deferred Disposition statute.
Key takeaways from the changes:
Judges must continue to order a Driving Safety Course (DSC) for defendants under 25 if offering deferred disposition for a traffic offense classified as a moving violation. This requirement is found in (b-1)(2), and it is unchanged.
The driving safety course designed for drivers under 25 (commonly called Alive at 25) has never been a requirement, and as of June 1, 2023, it will be repealed from the deferred disposition statute. Alive at 25 is a four-hour in-person course judges may consider as an additional deferred disposition requirement. This course was added to the deferred disposition statutes on January 1, 2012. Reading the statute has often led to confusion because judges are required to order a DSC as part of deferred for drivers under 25 but may also consider ordering a second additional course: often a program called Alive at 25. It is easy to conflate the required DSC for under 25 with the optional “additional driving safety course designed for drivers younger than 25 years of age.” Thankfully, this statute will be a bit clearer on June 1, 2023.
It is worth noting that Alive at 25 is a specific curriculum and a part of the National Safety Council’s Driver Safety Training. The Alive at 25 curriculum will still exist after June 1, and a judge could still require Alive at 25 as part of deferred disposition under Art. 45.051(b)(10), which permits the judge to order a defendant to comply with “any other reasonable condition.” The difference being that this would no longer be an “additional driving safety course” under the deferred disposition statute or under Chapter 1001 of the Education Code regulating Driving Safety Courses.
Section 106.115(a) of the Alcoholic Beverage Code provides that minors convicted of or granted deferred disposition for public intoxication, purchasing alcohol, attempting to purchase alcohol, consuming alcohol, driving under the influence, alcohol possession, and age misrepresentation must complete either an alcohol awareness program, drug education program, or drug and alcohol driving awareness program (DADAP). For orders entered on or after June 1, 2023, however, DADAP will no longer be one of the options.
DADAP has traditionally been an attractive choice because it is offered online, which makes it accessible to most defendants no matter where they reside. With DADAP’s repeal only a few weeks away, municipal courts have begun inquiring whether the alcohol awareness program and/or the drug awareness program may be completed online.
Section 106.115(a) provides that the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) approves alcohol awareness programs. Even though Section 106.115(a) further provides that the Department of State Health Services approves the drug awareness program, 16 Texas Administrative Code Section 90.1 transfers this authority to TDLR. Therefore, starting June 1, TDLR will be responsible for approving any course available under Section 106.115(a). TDLR’s website provides searchable lists for approved alcohol awareness and drug awareness courses:
But can these courses be completed online? Section 171.0055 of the Government Code provides that TDLR-approved court-ordered programs—including those ordered under Section 106.115(a)—may be in-person or virtual. Section 171.0055 was created in 2021 by the same Legislature that repealed DADAP.
TMCEC randomly accessed a few of the course links on each list above and found that many courses offered have a virtual/online option, typically using Zoom. Thus, even though DADAP will no longer be an option on June 1, minor defendants convicted of or granted deferred disposition for alcohol offenses will continue to have online options to complete any required course ordered under Section 106.115(a).
Full Court Press 