Does anyone no any reason why we cannot dismiss with court costs? The former DA's in this county had a policy against it but my new boss is thinking we can. I know when I practiced in Tarrant County they did this as a matter of course.

Maybe the policy was based on the language of arts. 102.005 (b), 102.075 (l) and similar statutes, which seem to say costs are due only if someone is "considered convicted". But, if the Defendant agrees to pay, then maybe a valid contract is formed. But see also sec. 102.001(b)(2) of the Government Code, which certainly implies that neither a judge nor clerk have any authority to impose, assess or collect any fee not provided for by law (i.e. where there is not someone being convicted). Also, the Attorney General has pointed out: "The law may not require a defendant to pay a fee in order to obtain the dismissal of a criminal charge of which the defendant is innocent." Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. JM-917
(1988).

[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 03-08-04 at .]

Art. 103.002 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also states more explicitly that no costs should be imposed that are "not expressly provided by law".

I would strongly advise against charging court costs on a dismissed case. I think it is illegal to do so, since there is no legal authority whatsoever. It is simply a squeeze play to get money from a defendant on a dismissed case.