Regardless of the nature of the practice, most legal professionals will get involved in Municipal Court cases from time to time. Sometimes as a result of their own tickets, but more possibly as a result of a request from the "good client", whose good will the legal professional wishes to keep.

Keeping that hard won good will requires proper handling of the case. This article is designed to give the legal professional who does not regularly handle municipal court cases some general guidance in handling such cases. It is not designed as a substitute for independent legal research or legal counsel, but rather, as a discussion of some of the basics of practice before municipal courts.

Municipal courts are courts of limited, fine only, jurisdiction. Because proceedings in municipal courts are often informal in nature, it is frequently surprising to the general practitioner to learn that all cases in municipal courts are criminal cases and are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code. Even municipal zoning or building code ordinance violations are criminal in nature.

Jurisdictional Limits:

Class C misdemeanors punishable by fine and other non-jailable sanctions that are rehabilitative or remedial in nature only including but not limited to:

Traffic Tickets:

The most common situation in which a client will come in contact with a municipal court is when the client has received a traffic ticket.

Traffic tickets are covered under the new Transportation Code ("Code") effective September 1, 1995. This new code is essentially a re-codification of the old Vehicle Laws. The legislative intent was to re-codify without changing the substance of the codes. For the most part they succeeded. The changes which were made are too minor and technical to consider here. The practitioner just needs to know that the prior offense designations and numbers have changed. Legislative and case history follows the new code.

The first determination to be made is the type of violation that the ticket covers. Violations, covered by Subsection C of the Transportation Code, are in some specific situations handled differently than offenses which do not fall under that subsection. For instance, if a Subsection C violation is alleged and the client is released upon a promise to appear but does not go to court within the 10 days specified on the ticket, the client will face an additional violation; in this case, violation of Promise to Appear (543.009 of the Code). If it is an alleged offense that is not covered by Subsection C, not making arrangements with the court on or before the due date is covered under Section 38.10 of the Penal Code -Failure to Appear-which may result in a higher fine.

The second determination is the return date specified on the ticket. The client or the attorney is required to contact the court on or before a specified date which can be no less than 10 days from the date of the ticket. Some ticket forms will have a space for the officer to specify the return date; others just state that the defendant shall contact the court within ten (10) days. It should be noted that the Transportation code requires that a person charged with speeding or with a violation of the open container law, Section 49.03 of the Penal Code, who signs a written promise to appear, must be released by the officer upon the signing of the promise to appear. If the person refuses to sign, then the defendant can be arrested and brought before a magistrate.

If the offense involved is a Subsection C violation committed while operating a motor vehicle, the next question is whether or not the client is entitled to take a defensive driving course. Defensive driving can be either mandatory - the court must grant a request to take the course, or permissive-the court may grant a request to take the course.

Mandatory defensive driving applies to offenses under subtitle C-Rules of the Road-of the Transportation Code. Section 543.103 requires that the court shall defer proceedings and allow a person up to 90 days to complete a Defensive Driving Course if the defendant:

If the individual is not eligible for mandatory defensive driving, inquiries should be made regarding the court's policy toward discretionary defensive driving. Most courts have a written policy regarding this issue. Generally, the court clerk is a good source of information regarding the court's policy. A motion for discretionary defensive driving may be made at any time before the final disposition of the case.

In the last legislature, the Code was amended to permit the submission of a defensive driving certificate within 30 days after the expiration of the 90 day period allowed to take the course. This is to permit the defendant a 30 day grace period from the date of completion for the processing of the certificate. Also, since the last legislature, motorcycle defensive driving courses are now available for offenses committed while driving a motorcycle.

Finally, if the client is not eligible for any kind of defensive driving, deferred adjudication may be an option. Not all courts grant deferred adjudication in such cases. Again, the court clerk is a good source of information on the court's policy on this issue. Most courts, if they are willing to grant deferred adjudication, will require the payment of a special expense fee, collection of cost of court, and commission of no further offenses for a period of time not to exceed 180 days. Some courts will also require that the defendant complete an approved driving safety course as well. Such course is mandatory when the person has completed a defensive driving course in preceding 12 month period pursuant to section 543.103.

Inability to Pay

It should be remembered that Municipal courts are "fine only" courts. Frequently citizens who have been given a ticket fail to appear because they do not have the financial resources to pay the ticket and fear being placed in jail. Municipal courts cannot require that a defendant lay out a fine in jail-at the rate of no less than $50.00 per day -if there is a demonstrated inability to pay. The court is required to consider payment plans and alternatives such as community service. It is only the defendant who has the ability to pay, or refuses to perform community service who faces a commitment and then only after a hearing. Community service is always an option that the court is required to consider when there is an inability to pay. If community service is ordered the court will give credit of $50.00 per 8 hours of service. The court is required to limit community service to no more than 16 hours per week unless the court makes a finding that more time would not work a hardship on the defendant or his dependents.

It should be noted, that once a citizen enters into a payment plan or fails to make a payment when due, a capias pro fine can be issued. Finally, the municipal court does have contempt power and can jail an individual for up to three days and a fine not to exceed $100.00. Finding an individual in contempt for refusing to pay is considered, by many commentators, to be risky and is a rarely used sanction.

Juvenile Cases

A municipal court has jurisdiction over offenses relating to juveniles that occur within the jurisdictional limits of the court. It should be noted that cases which are handled in the municipal court are not juvenile cases under Title III of the Family Code. As such, the confidentiality provisions of Title III do not apply. Generally, if the juvenile is alleged to have committed the same offense in the past the municipal court is required to transfer the case to the juvenile court. If the offense is within the jurisdiction of the court and the offense is not a traffic offense the municipal court may transfer the case to the local juvenile court. Some municipal courts hold a jurisdictional hearing prior to hearing the case on the merits. In dealing with juvenile offenders the practitioner should inquire about the availability of a teen court option.

Conclusion

While cases in municipal court are generally not earth shattering cases, they are very important to the client and do require preparation and thought to insure that the best interests of the client are properly served. It is worth remembering that more citizens come before municipal and justice courts than any other court. The exposure to the judicial system that they receive is generally the only exposure that they will have and will shape their perception of the legal system.
Wayne Lovett is the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court in the City of Lakeway. He is a frequent writer in national law journals on technology issues and is former corporate counsel for Communications Transmission, Inc.
Return to TPJ Third Edition


Return to TPJ Home Page