If a County inmate requires medical care (like in the thousands) plead and go on probation, can the county recover the medical care cost as a term of probation?

I didn't find any Texas case expressly stating that you can or cannot. But if you stay within the "bookend" concerns you should be fine: i.e., the purposes for which terms and conditions can be used and when they are invaild. See, e.g., McArthur v. State, 1 sw3d 323 (2/99 pdrr).

I vote no, unless you can identify a specific statute that expressly authorizes that type of restitution. For a related discussion, see pages 98-100 of The Perfect Plea. In particular, case law says that the Legislature only expressly authorizes financial payments, unlike creative conditions of probation that are not financial.

For a chart of authorized financial payments, see page 101.

As a point of comparison, there is an express authorization for reimbursement of cost of confinement in county jail, limited to $25/day.

I would, of course, defer to Mr. Bradley, given his exceptional experience and knowledge in this field. I did, however, review John's book, as I always would on any interesting punishment question. It is a tremendous resource. I had thought--maybe irrationally, that the costs could fall within those related to the rehabilitation of the offender--but it may be an uphill battle given the law's requirement that most allowable expenses are incurred after sentence, not before. If not an allowable term or condition, though, perhaps it ought to be made so expressly by the Legislature. He cannot be the first running up medical bills at county cost and who would have to pay the cost but for incarceration--and these are expenses above and beyond what an average inmate incurs.

[This message was edited by John A. Stride on 03-26-10 at .]

Sir Stride, your thoughts are not irrational. And, just looking at the very broad authorizing language for writing conditions of probation, you might very well have a case. But, the Legislature has deemed money to be different. The Leg tends to worry that judges will abuse their discretion in imposing financial conditions. They remedy that problem by endlessly amending the CCP to add specific authorization to impose financial payments. And, then, they complain in hearings that there are too many fees and such for the probationer to pay. Surely you can see the rationality of that approach.

Alas, I have no title, not even an ancestor of aristocratic bent (the far more deserving
Bransons and Johns have them all!), but I enjoy feeling out the edges of the law. I totally see your point about the fiscal considerations of the Legislature--though I don't necessarily agree with their concerns. After all, they are the ones looking for money to pay the horrific expense of the criminal justice system. And since when did elected judges become so abusive of their powers?