In This Issue

Quick Links

Upcoming Events

Fri, May 6, 2016, 10:00am
Third Court of Appeals
209 W. 14th Street, Room 101
Austin

Thu, Jun 2, 2016 1:00pm
John H. Reagan Building
105 W 15th St.
Room 131, Austin

Fri, Jun 3, 2016 
1:00pm
John H. Reagan Building
105 W 15th St. 
Room 131, Austin
April 2016 
News From the Office of Court Administration
OCA Administrative Director Issues Update on State and National Efforts in Collections of Fines, Fees and Court Costs
Earlier this month, OCA Administrative Director David Slayton distributed an update on state and national efforts in the area of collections of fines, fees and court costs. The update discusses the Judicial Council's recent publication of proposed rule changes to the Collections Improvement Program (CIP). It also describes the effort underway by an OCA advisory group for a more thorough review of the CIP Rules that are expected to be presented to the Judicial Council at its next meeting on June 3. The update also gives courts, clerks and collections program staff information about the National Task Force on Fines, Fees and Bail Practices established by the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators, on which Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht and OCA Director of Research and Court Services Scott Griffith sit. Lastly, information from the United States Department of Justice on the collection of monetary penalties was distributed for consideration by the courts and collections programs.

Subsequent to this update, Chief Justice Hecht met with leaders of the justice and municipal courts on April 26 to enlist their assistance in the national and state efforts. A great dialogue amongst the attendees produced several ideas and will continue into the future. 
Court of Criminal Appeals considers potential impacts of criminal eFiling
Implementation of the Criminal eFiling system continues throughout the state. Currently 112 clerks in 78 counties have implemented criminal eFiling on a permissive basis. The Court of Criminal Appeals also held a hearing earlier this month to discuss the potential impacts if criminal eFiling were to be mandated. There were several speakers who discussed the pros and cons of mandating criminal eFiling, and the Court asked questions to better inform their decision.

For more, see article in Texas Lawyer by Angela Morris:

Commission to Expand Civil Legal Services Seeks Innovative Ideas
The Texas Commission to Expand Civil Legal Services, meeting for a second time April 9, urged compiling accurate data to define its charge, discussed the efforts private law firms have committed to pro bono representation and listened as law-school educators describe clinical efforts to represent people of modest means. All agreed that Texas must find a way to match clients who need legal help that they are unable to afford with lawyers who agree to serve that market.

"What we need," Commission Chair Wallace B. Jefferson said, "is innovative ideas."

By the end of the four-hour meeting, the ideas were flowing. That was what Jefferson wanted.

Among the discussion: limited-scope representation - lawyers who might be hired to help on an aspect of a client's case; law schools that train lawyers not just to advocate but also to build solo practices on a modest-means model; "triage" setups involving courthouse "navigators" who can assess a potential client's problems and direct them to lawyers or, perhaps, other professionals when legal representation is not required.

The suggestions and possible proposals explored whether scheduling bar exams earlier - closer in time to when students have taken bar-exam courses - would improve passage rates.

Commission members also emphasized that the need for new thinking exists in both state and federal courts.

"We have two separate categories of need," U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal said: indigent clients and those with lower incomes but beyond poverty. "We need to make proposals directed at each." She and others mentioned that rules changes may help demystify the legal system or encourage lawyers to find new ways to provide basic services at lower costs.

Members all expressed an interest in conducting a public hearing to gather perspectives and experiences, with invited testimony.

Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht noted that the Texas Supreme Court created the commission as a means to broaden legal services for lower- and middle-income people who, evidence shows, too often have to go it alone, wait too long for a remedy, or give up on the system altogether.

The Commission will report proposals to the Supreme Court in November.
RACER To Allow Access to Judges as early as June 2016
Development on the new Remote Access to Court Electronic Records (RACER) system continues. Tyler Technologies is working to grant access to judges starting in early June. This tool will allow judges to see all electronically filed documents without needing access to the local case management system. While the tool is not meant to replace traditional electronic judicial tools, it will provide a very rudimentary judicial tool where there are none today.

Development will continue throughout 2016 with the goal of allowing the attorney of record access to eFiled documents at the end of this year. 
OCA evaluates needs through Equipment Loan Program
OCA announced in March the new OCA Equipment Loan Program that would allow counties in need to get PCs and a server on loan from OCA to assist in the implementation of eFiling. At the end of the loan period, OCA will donate the equipment to the county for continued use. As of today, more than 40 counties have responded with a need. OCA will evaluate these needs and loan equipment based on the size of the county (less populous counties are given priority).
Supreme Court issues Opinion on Clerk's bill civil filing fees
On April 1, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court issued a new opinion addressing circumstances in which filing fees may be recouped from an individual who has filed an uncontested affidavit of indigency. The trial court temporarily enjoined the District Clerk of Tarrant County from billing parties who had filed uncontested affidavits of indigency. A divided court of appeals vacated the injunction and dismissed the case because the trial court had not rendered the judgments in the cases in which costs were billed. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. 

In each of these divorce cases, the Petitioner had filed an uncontested affidavit of indigency. In each case, the divorce decree allocated costs, providing either that "costs of Court are to be borne by the party who incurred them" of that "Husband will for his court costs [and] the Wife will pay for her court costs."  The decrees did not state the amount of costs due or that Petitioners were able to afford them. After entry of the decrees, each of the Petitioners received collection notices from the clerk which demanded, on average, about $300 in court costs and fees. The Supreme Court overruled the 1982 per curiam opinion in Evans v. Pringle, and held that Carey v. Looney correctly interpreted what is now Section 65.023(b), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

The Supreme Court noted that both parties agreed that the District Clerk has a ministerial duty to bill costs as required by a judgment. Although the District Clerk argued that Petitioners' divorce decrees required them to pay costs, the Supreme Court held that the decrees only allocate costs between the parties to each case and that "for a party who files an affidavit of inability to pay costs, there are no costs to bill." The Supreme Court based this holding upon Rule 145 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The Supreme Court noted that the District Clerk argued that because the Family Code provides courts with increased latitude to award costs, it is conceivable that a family court could order costs despite an affidavit of inability to pay. The Supreme Court responded to this argument by stating, "This argument flies in the face of our Constitution and case law. Rule 145 is but one manifestation of the open court guarantee that 'every person . . .shall have remedy by due course of law.'"  The Supreme Court further stated, "It is an abuse of discretion for any judge, including a family law judge, to order costs in spite of an uncontested affidavit of indigence."

The District Clerk also argued that the injunction was overbroad because the district court enjoined the District Clerk from "continuing his policy of collection of court costs from indigent parties . . .unless [the court makes a specific finding in accordance with Rule 145(d)]." The Supreme Court held that the injunction was proper and not overbroad, because it required the District Clerk to conform his actions to the law and did not restrain the District Clerk from any lawful activity. 
AG Opinion on Applicability of Article 45.0541 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Opinion No.  KP-0073
Re: Applicability of Expunction Orders Under Article 45.0541 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Records in the Possession of a Juvenile Probation Department as a Result of a Referral for Delinquent Conduct.

On March 28, 2016, the Office of the Attorney General (AG) issued an opinion regarding the applicability of expunction orders under Article 45.0541 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to records in the possession of a juvenile probation department as a result of a referral for delinquent conduct as defined by Section 51.03(a)(2) of the Family Code. Under Section 51.03(a)(2), delinquent conduct includes conduct that violates a lawful order of a court under circumstances that would constitute contempt of that court. House Bill 2398 (84th Legislature, Regular Session) enacted Article 45.0541, C.C.P., entitled "Expunction of Failure to Attend School Records," which requires the expunction of the conviction or complaint and any records related to the conviction or complaint for a truancy offense under the former Section 25.094 of the Education Code, Failure to Attend School.  
 
The request for opinion asked whether Article 45.0541 applied to juvenile court records and juvenile court proceedings, which are generally governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure rather than the Code of Criminal Procedure.
 
The AG determined that "an expunction order issued to a juvenile probation department under article 45.0541 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would likely apply to documents in the department's possession as a result of a referral to the juvenile court for delinquent conduct as defined by subsection 51.03(a)(2) of the Family Code."
 
The AG reasoned that the referral for contempt and any juvenile records related to the referral, including the referral's disposition, constitute "related records," and, thus, are likely subject to expunction.
WINGS Considers Next Steps
The Working Interdisciplinary Network of Guardianship Stakeholders (WINGS) group met on March 31, 2016. David Slayton provided updates on the guardianship registry and online guardianship training programs. Jeff Rinard gave a presentation on the OCA Guardianship Compliance Pilot Project. The Chair of each of the current WINGS workgroups gave an update concerning their workgroup's activities and developments in the areas focused upon by their workgroup. The WINGS group discussed issues arising from legislation from the 84th Texas Legislature. Judy Speer presented information to the group concerning an invitation for members of the WINGS group to participate in a forum in Houston and outlined the proposed new workgroup for outreach activities.
Research & Court Services Spotlight - Data Quality Management
Data quality management incorporates a cycle of continuous analysis, observation, and improvement leading to overall improvement in the quality of information used to make decisions. The following resources may assist you in reviewing the data quality management cycle in your court.

This article presents a look at data quality management in Harris County with a focus on their transition to electronic records. The final point of the article is key to data quality management in the courts:
"a consistent message from the court leadership team - judges, clerks of court, court administrators, managers, and supervisors - is required to initiate and sustain a high level of data quality."

Source: Court Statistics Project,  Caseload Highlights - Notes from the Field

This article looks at the role of chief data officer from a corporate perspective but a number of points are applicable to the courts. The following excerpt on the levels of data quality maturity may be helpful in assessing your court's data quality improvement activities.

Level 1: Uncertainty. The technicians in the organization stumble over data defects as their programs crash, or the businesspeople complain. There is no proactive data quality improvement process in place. Basically, the organization is asleep and doesn't want to be awakened.
Level 2: Awakening. A few isolated individuals acknowledge the dirty data and try to incorporate some data quality disciplines in their projects. However, there still is no enterprise-wide support for data quality improvement, no data quality group, and no funding.
Level 3: Enlightenment. The organization starts to address the root causes of its dirty data through program edits and data quality training. A data quality group is created, and there is funding for data quality improvement projects. The data quality group immediately performs an enterprise-wide data quality assessment and institutes several data quality disciplines.
Level 4: Wisdom. The organization proactively works on preventing future data defects by adding more data quality disciplines to its data quality improvement program. Managers across the organization accept personal responsibility for data quality. Incentives for improving data quality replace incentives for cranking out systems at the speed of light.
Level 5: Certainty. The organization is in an optimization cycle by continuously monitoring and improving its data defect-prevention processes. Data quality is an integral part of all business processes. Every job description requires attention to data quality, reporting of data defects, determining the root causes, improving the affected data quality processes to eliminate the root causes, and monitoring the effects of the improvement. Basically, the culture of the organization changes.

Source: Cutter Consortium

These presentation slides provide an overview of the Research Division and Business Practice Unit of Hennepin District Court in Minnesota. In this all electronic court, the Business Practices Unit has the main purpose of identifying and reducing risk through data quality management. The presentation provides information on how the unit was formed, roles and responsibilities of the unit, and how the unit enhanced court operation outcomes.

Source: Presentation by Dr. Marcy Podkopacz & Dr. Matt Johnson, Fourth Judicial District of Minnesota, Hennepin County, at National Association for Court Management, 2016 Midyear Conference.

For additional information on this topic or to discuss how OCA can help you with data quality,  please contact OCA's Scott Griffith, Director of Research and Court Services, or Amanda Stites, Research Specialist at (512) 463-1625.
Correctional Management Institute of Texas offers Courtroom Security training 
The Correctional Management Institute of Texas is offering Courtroom Security training on May 3-4, 2016. The following topics will be addressed: Crisis Response; Professional Courtroom Management; Individual Authority; Rights of the Victims, Defendant, the Gallery, and the Media; Life & Death Decisions of the First Responder. Click here to register online. 
For further information about this training, contact Michaelanne Teeters at (936) 294-1705 or email [email protected].
 
To view other upcoming trainings offered through CMIT, visit www.cmitonline.org!
AG Opinion
Opinion: (KP-0074) Whether section 202.052 of the Estates Code requires citation by publication in all actions to determine heirship
Request for Opinion: (RQ-0058-KP)
 
Summary: A court would likely conclude that section 202.052 of the Estates Code requires citation by publication in all heirship proceedings to determine whether a decedent has any unknown heirs.
Appointments
Governor Greg Abbott has appointed Patty Maginnis of Conroe as judge of the 435th Judicial District Court in Montgomery County for a term set to expire at the next general election in November 2016. 

Governor Abbott has appointed Wes Tidwell of Paris as judge of the 6th Judicial District Court in Lamar and Red River Counties for a term set to expire at the next general election in November 2016.
Justice for All Legislation
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced the Justice for All Reauthorization Act (S. 2577/H.R. 4602) on February 24, 2016. The bill primarily devotes resources to exonerate those wrongfully accused, but would reinstate a mandatory consultation provision for the distribution of Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funding by state criminal justice commissions. These commissions would be required to involve all stakeholders of the criminal justice system, including state courts, in the planning process before a statewide criminal justice plan is approved and resources from the Byrne JAG program are allocated to the states. The Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the Conference of State Court Administrators have expressed their support for this mandatory consultation provision (CCJ/COSCA Resolution 12-A-8).  Senator Cornyn's staff will approach Judiciary Committee staff over the recess to try to schedule a hearing/markup when the Congress returns to session. This bill has bipartisan support with Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) joining Senator Cornyn as an original sponsor of the legislation.  

Source: Washington UpdateNCSC Government Relations Office
Resources
JTC Resource Bulletin
The JTC Resource Bulletin: Using Technology to Improve Pretrial Release Decision-Making has just been posted to the JTC Publications & Webinars website, you can find it here.
Judicial Training Resource Links
About the OCA
OCA is a state agency in the judicial branch that operates under the direction and supervision of the Supreme Court of Texas and the chief justice and is governed primarily by Chapter 72 of the Texas Government Code.  www.txcourts.gov
 
If you are interested in following us on Facebook, please take the opportunity to "Like" us on the button in the left column or you may also follow us on Twitter.