In connection with H.B. 2 and the dwi surcharge there was also a $30 state traffic fine imposed. The question has arisen with the county clerk as to the imposition date of the fee. Her stance is any traffic case (including dwls) committed after sept. 1 2003 that enters a plea or is found guilty after Jan. 1, 2004 is to be charged the $30. What is correct? I thought I read in a leg. update that the effective date of H.B. 2 was Jan. 11, 2004.
Hear is the question. Offense (dwls, speeding, etc.); date committed: Nov.'03; Plea date: Jan. 6'04. Does the $30 fee apply? #2 Same as above but plea date of Jan.12 '04?
Any help would be appreciated

If you are referring to what was initially an "additional court cost" for a person convicted of a Title 7, Subtitle C offense (See Acts 2003, ch. 1325 sec. 12.01(a) effective 9-1-03), then it appears to me that the $30 was collected and disbursed in accordance with 542.4031 as it read between 9-1-03 and 1-11-04 for offenses committed on or after 9-1-03. Then, beginning 1-11-04 the "State Traffic Fine" will be collected in lieu of the additional court cost from anyone who enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to one of those offenses on or after 1-11-04 (since Acts 2003, 3rd Called Session ch. 8, sec. 2.02 has no provision for when the offense took place, like sec. 12.01(b) of ch. 1325) and the funds disbursed in accordance with subsections (e) and (f) of 542.4031, which were not changed in the Third Special Session legislation. Now, I suppose there is an ex post facto claim with respect to those who failed to pay their tickets before 1-11-04, but who would not have been liable for the "additional court costs" if they had. This would also be true with respect to anyone who committed an offense prior to 9-1-03, but who failed to dispose of the case by 1-11-04.

Martin,
Thanks for the response, however, now I have more questions. A bit of history: When I was first elected, I assisted the clerk with the computation of costs after each session. Once a new clerk was elected, She indicated she could handle the task on her own, to which I said fine, send me a list once completed. Through the years, there have been minor costs assessed incorrectly but based on her schedule.
Last year prior to Sept 1, I asked for a new schedule specifically discussing the DWI Trauma fee and was told the new costs did not go into effect until Jan.1 for offenses committed after Jan 1,'04. We have not been imposing the new costs after 9/03 and did not get a new schedule(despite my asking for one) until the day before our first court docket of the new year. She is now upset because we did not include the new costs for those cases that arose after 9/03 but were disposed of after 1/04.
If I read your post correctly, the $30 should have been charged on all "traffic" cases committed after 9/03 regardless of the diposition date, it just has a different name after 1/11/04.
I do not believe it is the duty of the prosecutor to set the costs even though we prepare the judgment. Seems to me that is the duty of the clerk of the court.
I know I am venting, but I specifically asked and am now being "blamed" for the improper amounts being in the judgments and I refuse to do a nunc pro tunc on those cases.
Any thoughts?

[This message was edited by mhartman on 01-13-04 at .]

No good deed goes unpunished.

It does not appear to me that the judgment is required to provide for the collection of court costs. In any event, perhaps it should just state that "the State do have and recover from Defendant the costs of court in this prosecution expended", without attempting to specify the precise amount. After all, it is up to the Clerk to see that all (and the correct amount of) the costs are in fact paid or attempted to be collected. This simply brings up the point that where the amount of the costs is incorrectly stated in the judgment, is the clerk (State) bound thereby? I would think that the amount of the costs is not something the court adjudicated (nor was it necessary to be adjudicated or determined by the court). Thus, why not tell your clerk to collect the correct amount and pay little attention to what is stated in the judgment. If this is something that can be corrected nunc pro tunc, then it cannot be the subject of a judicial error in the first place. This might also be a way to go back and collect the sums due as of 9-1-03 under the former statute. This would also shift the blame right back to the clerk.

The amount of fine is something that must be correctly set out in the judgment, so my guess is that if the "State" assessment were omitted after 1-11-04, you might have a bigger problem.

I am curious if any other jurisdictions do not put the amount of the court costs in the judgment and if not, do you use the language Martin suggested or something similar? While I like the idea Martin suggested, I will start WWIII if I follow his idea(which I am still considering).
Other ideas or thoughts on this topic are greatly appreciated.

World wars have started for lesser reasons and in stranger places than Snyder. It sure saves a lot of hassle in preparing a judgment. Maybe art. 103.007 CCP is going to have to be taken into account, but the language of that statute seems to support the idea that costs can be adjusted regardless of prior paperwork.

We always put the court costs in the judgment because at least with class c offenses the appeal bond is twice the fines and court costs and thus the defendant is provided notice of what he has to post before appealing.

When I said that it does not appear the judgment must provide for collection of court costs, I was referring to art. 42.01, which presumably applies to judgments rendered upon appeal of misdemeanor convictions to the county court (or "proper court" as referred to in 45.042(a)). See art. 42.01 sec. 3. The judgment in the JP/Municipal court should "be that the defendant pay the amount of ... cost to the state." art. 45.041(a). But I still do not think this statute requires the amount of the costs be precisely stated. No doubt such a statement would aid the defendant in figuring out the correct amount of an appeal bond. But, again, would the judge be bound to accept the figure in the judgment in determining whether to approve the bond? My main point is, is it not the clerk rather than the court that determines the amount of the costs, and cannot this be reflected in the bill of costs under 103.001, regardless of how it is addressed in the judgment?