Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (9)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB260
Act 277
· 6 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “I will be ready to present SB 260. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Joshua Bryant'…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF COURT FINES, FEES, OR COSTS AFTER DEFAULT. | J. Bryant | Notification that SB260 is now Act 277 |
|
SB244
Act 275
· 5 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ich bill first, which one do you want to do first? Let's do Senate Bill 244. OK. Uh, you are recognized”
|
CONCERNING POSTPONEMENT OF JUDGMENT IN DISTRICT COURT; AND TO PERMIT A SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB244 is now Act 275 |
|
HB1479
Act 418
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HE COLLECTION OF COURT FINES, FEES, OR COSTS AFTER DEFAULT. HB1479 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVITS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVITS; AND TO ALLOW A LICENSED ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, OR … | Warren | Notification that HB1479 is now Act 418 |
|
SB143
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Rice Sen. Matt McKee REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB144
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TY CORRECTION IN CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES. SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER…”
|
CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB145
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Y JAIL- STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO-HOME SENTENCING PARTNERSHIPS. SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB277
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ND RECORD A SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVIT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALIN…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING … | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB5
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SED SINCE THE THEFT. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HA…”
|
TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB6
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. Not…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
0:23
Of Senator King is not here and I believe he's not going to be here. If not, we're going to move these 1st 3 bills to the deferred list for next week. So he
gets back with us to tell us he's ready. Center Bryant,
you are, if you, uh, and your guests will identify yourselves for the record.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
0:56
I will be ready to present SB 260. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Joshua Bryant's Senate
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:08
District 32. And I'm Kristen Clark. I'm the director of the legal division at the administrative Office of the courts. And
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:16
Mr. Chair, which, which bill first, which one do you want to do first? Let's do Senate Bill 244. OK. Uh, you are recognized
to present Senate Bill 244. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. This bill comes to us from the district courts to establish in statute what is already done in practice and give better clarity and a broader range of authority to do postponement of judgment and not only traffic cases but criminal cases as well. And so I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Clark with AOC who can better maybe tell you where they have been and what they're doing and what this bill will help clarify.
Speaker 10
1:58
Ms. Clark, you recognize. Thank you, Senator Clark, this bill in
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:03
many ways is a cleanup bill. We received some telephone calls last year from ACIC where there were, I'm gonna say confusion related to how dispositions were being reported out of district court. Many times when you take something under advisement, it's for a period of time to make sure that someone is completing the requirements of a sentence and then ultimately the offense should be dismissed. We had clerks who were entering
some of that data into ACIC system incorrectly and then of course 6 months later when they've completed all of their conditions and are now trying to dismiss a guilty conviction ACIC had some issues with this, so this clarifies what that procedure should be and how that should be handled and makes it clear that court clerks don't have to enter these until actually, um, there's a conviction, and then any other questions that you have, I'm happy to answer. Questions from the committee.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
3:03
Say no questions from the committee. We have no one signed up to speak for or against. Do we have anyone to speak for or against? See none Central Bryant, would you like to close for
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:15
your bill? Thank you committee. I think this is a good, it is a good cleanup bill. It gets better. Better advisement to our district courts on how they can handle cases and better clarity to the those are being educated for offenses. So with that, I appreciate a good vote. What Or the wishes of the committee.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
3:35
Yeah, we, we're do past Senator Gilmore, 2 from Senator
McKee. Any discussion. Harry Nunn, all for the motion signified by saying aye all post. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Bro. You have passed Senate Bill 244. I thank you committee. Uh, with that, uh, with permission of the chair, moved to Senate Bill 260.
Central brought you are recognized to present Senate Bill 260.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
4:13
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 260. My intentions 260 is to clarify what uh a lot don't know they can or cannot do. So whenever you look at district courts, I know we were doing a lot with through Amendment 80 as it comes fully online with how the funds are separated and how those that owe fines fees or work costs have to pay. We're going to
obviously do a lot of changes to that. I asked the question, how much does the district court, how much do those that owe fines and fees and court costs. How much do they really owe? And the answer was in the millions of dollars across the state. So I asked the question, well, how do you, how do you collect that if, if the goal of the fine or the fee is to avoid jail time or avoid going to community service because they have to go to work, but then they're not paying this, and they just continue to rack up fines and fees. How is the collection
happening? Well, at the time it was you get put on a payment plan and you just keep on paying and eventually the judge has to decide whether it's not worth it and they put you in jail, which they're trying to avoid in the first place. So the question I asked the DFNA and to the courts was, can you You can just like any other, can you intercept the tax return. Can you intercept any state obligated funds to that individual first and DFNA said they think they can based on the current statute, but the court said, I don't think the judge I talked to said I think that's a
bigger challenge and too cumbersome, some clarity would be helpful, so I took it upon myself to kind of visit with the FNA and local judges to determine that this language will give them clarity. that upon their order or their motion, they can intercept the state tax return under the procedures that they would to collect unpaid restitution in a civil matter, so they felt this was a clean way to go about at their order if they're just tired of a defendant racking up 5s and fees, they could just say
it's another tool in my toolbox. I'm going to go collect it from the state first before you get it
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
6:20
back. Questions from the committee, Senator Gilmore. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Um, so I, I think I'm good with the restitution part and collecting that. I have no problem with that, especially I think it makes sense. I guess I, my one question would be I notice up there in the first section, our
first paragraph where it says it goes from fines or costs to fines, fees or costs. Why are we adding fees. Well, there's
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
6:50
3 different levels. The way I understood there's 3 different levels of Of
what the courts imposed during their adjudication process and the judge decided the ask was they're all, it could be this much in a cost this much in a fee and this much in a fine, and I want the ability to collect all and not just say, hey, you, you can't, you took this, but you, how much
of that is my fee? And so it just to lump it all
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
7:20
as one judgment was the preferred acts. Follow up. Yes. So were they not collecting the fees previously
or? No. And that and that may be
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
7:32
a question for Ms. Clark. I don't know, and you know I'll we'll defer to her. I think my understanding was under under civil action restitution, typically there weren't any fees. That was more of a of a um
criminal nature and so this not only in the civil this adds the ability to pull fines and fees and court costs from a criminal act as well. OK,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
7:59
fines, fees, court costs, and restitution are all being collected, but that with this particular provision, it's what do you do after someone is actually in default and it just gives courts another opportunity and clarifies the procedure that they're going to be allowed to follow when they do the tax
income uh intercept, but this is in addition to all the normal things that they would be able to do with failures to comply or failure to pay warrants, which, um, you know, the, the policy of The legislature lately has been to Uh, work with people to get payment as opposed to trying to enforce by
Speaker 37
8:32
incarcerating. So this is just another option for them to collect. So the pill. Yeah, Senator Bryant does
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
8:49
Does this bill, you know, this summer, we, uh, the Senate Judiciary and the House Judiciary did a comprehensive study on the fees and on the district judges and who's responsible for paying those salaries. Is this bill least connected to the fees. That we have Is this a part
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
9:12
that. I was, I was, I went to those conversations, but I didn't, I wasn't necessarily engaged in
the outcomes of them what those will still happen as whoever whatever representative senator proposes changes in that. This just gives another tool and toolbox to where they can collect and get those collected back into the court system for the for its use rather than just
letting them continue to rack up. Well There could be,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
9:39
there could be some legislation coming that would contradict some of this. You understand what I'm saying? because uh
We had talked about this a great deal. Of taking care of these fees where people couldn't afford it to put a burden on them and and uh uh we had talked about, there are several bills, and this seems like it's going to run afoul of some of these. of the bills.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
10:08
I think the fee structures that I've talked about is like changing it from the $10 to $5 and just overall fee structure, it doesn't deal with the, the collection of it in year in future.
As far as you you you refuse to comply with the court's orders to pay it. The jails can't take you. I'm going to ask the state to basically take it out of your income tax return. House Judiciary?
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
10:42
Mr. Chairman. Senator Dees. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um. I think my questions are related to um one of the defendant faults the timeline, so
It may be clear I'm just just would love to hear it of how fast this happens when a default happens or a missed installment payment happens and does it have to go back? For permission to to the judge in this situation? On the default of a payment. That's all done
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
11:11
through the through the clerk at the at the court. Right now they have that fee and they get on that payment plan. Well, if they don't pay, I assume they could issue a warrant if they want to go that
process or they wait till the the defendant comes back on another issue, and then they realize, hey, you stopped paying and then judgment falls again and those fines and fees just keep racking up it's more automated
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
11:36
in the system. And, and then I guess the the follow up would be on line 27 when it says may be collected by any means authorized. Um What, what are the possible means authorized, I guess.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
11:58
I will ask AOC if she if she knows so that's existing language, and I assume there's other statutes in the code that deal with the judgment of civil action. And so we're adding just for clarity upon the court's own motion, the interception of the tax return and the same procedure as unpaid restitution, so probably an unpaid restitution there's, there's more ways than just Intercepting the state income tax return, but in this case upon the court's motion, it will make that an actual valid reason
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
12:30
to clarify line 29, I think is what you're reading from where it clarifies to add this in. OK. All
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
12:35
right, thank you. If I, if I might just, uh, Senator Stubblefield to address your question, something I thought of this is kind of going first. I haven't seen any bills dropped. If there is any conflict between the task force to what this does, the last one passed will. will go into effect. Uh, Senator Tucker.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
13:01
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my concern, I'm not really concerned with subdivision A2. I'm more concerned with subsection A on line 23 through 25, same concerns Senator Gilmore raised. Right now the law allows courts to collect the fines and costs. This changes that to add the fees to what they can collect. I, I, I, that's what I'm concerned about with the bill, Ms. Clark. I, I.
Will you take another swing at the is your explanation that this is a better way than what currently exists or what's the, what's the rationale? So I'll just say again,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
13:43
AOC doesn't have a position, as you all know, we're just here as a resource and to provide information to help you all make good decisions, but when you take a look at the fine enforcement subchapter, which is a different subchapter than where this is located, you will see that under the definition of a fine, it's already inclusive of
fees and court costs and restitution. So the fact that they've added that here, um, Isn't necessarily a new concept, and I certainly don't think that that was probably one of the considerations that they were, they thought would be controversial. The main purpose of this, from my understanding, was just making it clear that not only is this available for restitution, but it would also be available for the fine fee part of it, but again, when you look at the fine enforcement subchapter, the term fine is
inclusive already of all of these individual terms where that term is defined in
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
14:39
the other subchapter, would that definition apply to Arkansas code 5-4-204. That's up to you all to determine that. But I, I understand that, but
Speaker 59
14:47
my question is, do you know currently that
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
14:50
definition would only apply to that subchapter. I haven't read that code section, so do you know if that's the way that it's written? I don't know if that's the way that that's written. OK, thank you.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
15:14
The, can you break down for me? And For anyone else who doesn't understand. Bonds And let's Skip beat fines cost and then fees, fines, I know that should be simple, but Fines are, so
Speaker 37
15:35
the fine portion of a penalty is going to be based on the the classification of the offense. So, for example,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
15:45
we've got violations with a maximum fine of $100 and you've got all of your misdemeanor offenses, a misdemeanor is anywhere from, it's up to 500 to be misdemeanors up to $1000 in fine, and then an a misdemeanor is up to $2500 in fines. So that's the fine portion. On top of that, you have uniform court cost and court costs vary depending on, again, the classification of the offense if it's a traffic offense, it's $75. If it's a criminal offense,
it's another $100 if it's a local ordinance violation, I believe it's maybe $50 and then on top of that, the legislature has um authorized additional fines. So for example, there might be an installment payment fee, or there might be the jail deframement fee or there might be a um jail booking fee that are authorized, and so that's why you've got fines that are based on the actual classification of the offense or court costs based on the
classification of the offense, and then you've got the additional fines that you all have also authorized. And it can vary depending on what the actual offense is, OK, and fees again.
Speaker 37
17:01
So the fees are going to be things like your gel deframement fee, your jail booking fee, the installment payment fees. The jail booking fee is, I believe, $40 right now. The jail deframement fees can be up to, those are going to be based on
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
17:18
local ordinances, and I believe the maximum on that's going to be $20 for the city, $20 for the county, and then of course the installment payment fee under current law is $10 a month, and there is legislation to that's going to be filed to change that, as you know. OK. The Who
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
17:39
else Uh And I know that's maybe a broad answer, but who else has the ability
Speaker 37
17:51
to intercept state income tax returns for payment. So almost any state entity can, and you
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
18:01
all create the priority for how that works, so the Office of Child Support Enforcement is frequently won, DFNA, if there's back taxes, frequently does
Speaker 37
18:09
that. I mean some of the counties will do that also, so it's almost any kind of entity that's a state or local government entity can do that. So is it
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
18:25
Only government that can that can do this, not, not a civil judgment. With the
Speaker 37
18:33
civil judgment, I'm not certain that a private party could do that. I would have to look at that and I'd be happy to do that, but again, the, this is, this is um
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
18:44
something that cities and counties, because they're who are running your courts have the ability to do already. OK, so you said most if not all
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
18:55
state entities and some of those were more familiar with the fact that they do it than others, but we have a, do we have then a break then at civil that government Who is owed money can come after the income tax return, but Private citizens cannot. That's my understanding. Do you happen to know the rationale?
Speaker 37
19:26
I don't know the policy decision behind why private citizens don't have that. I mean, I can tell
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
19:32
you that the rationale behind allowing governmental entities to do this and for it to be civil in nature instead of criminal in nature is that there's an incentive to collect the funds if it's criminal in nature, you have your um speedy trial rules and there's statute of limitations that you have to comply with by making it civil in nature, it allows you to an opportunity to collect those things longer.
If I got a speeding ticket and I could just, um, you know, not pay and outrun the law, so to speak, for a year and get beyond my statute of limitations on that, you'd never be able to collect the money and so that's the public policy that the
Speaker 59
20:11
legislature has set out up to this point on why we want some of these things to
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
20:17
be civil in nature. Again, and I understand that I'm just trying to get the rationale. So government wants to do it because they'd never get paid otherwise. On it. So why wouldn't citizens
who would never get paid otherwise who have a judgment from the courts. Not be able to do the
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
20:39
same. I mean, that would not be a, a public policy decision for the court. That would be up to the legislature, so I'm I can't provide the information that you're asking other than I suppose that you all haven't done that yet, but I'm happy to work with you on a bill if you want to. OK, thank you. Other questions from the committee.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
21:01
See none, we have no one signed up to testify for or against. Do we have anyone here to testify for or against? Yes, ma'am. You'll turn your mic on and
Speaker 80
21:23
identify yourself for the record. Hi Sarah Moore. I am with the Arkansas Justice Reform Coalition. Sorry, I'm short,
Sarah Moore
Unverified
21:29
so I'm trying to get to the microphone.
Apologize. I just have hesitation, I guess I'm a mild against at this point, my mine is more around we obviously have the recognition and thank you for the dialogue around the fact that we've had fines and fees study that's been going on, you know, anyone that's on a payment plan in the state of Arkansas for their fines and fees and costs is because they're poor, oftentimes working Arkansans, you know, are poor, and often when you look at, I don't know if we are looking at the redemption rate,
but across the state, I know in Northwest Arkansas, you know, there is probably a 50% to 60% return rate on the folks that are making their installment payments and so much of this stuff is not recoverable, and so my question really is around oftentimes individuals are using their tax refunds, and I understand it's it's allowable and this is trying to clean up, but it sounds like with us touching this piece of Of our statute, we're really clarifying and we might be
encouraging that there's going to be garnishment in this way going forward. My concern is that our organization worked with 1,000+ individuals last year in 2024. Oftentimes they have failure to pay and failure to appear. We don't even have in the state consistent ways that we're communicating when folks are falling kind of, you know, out of arrears. They might like have a warrant issue, but we don't have technology in place that's sending them a text reminder. We don't have, you know,
necessarily letters with any frequency reminding them, and so I understand at some point there can be a default, but my question is the additional diligence that we're doing and putting in place to monitor if this goes forward and we're suddenly I just talked about, you know, maybe there's 50 to 60%. Are we suddenly then going after this 40% and what kind of devastating impacts might that have in Arkansas to those families that when they get their tax return, that's where they buying a vehicle with that cash money to be able to get to their
job, so that they then can pay fines and fees and other obligations and keep their family stable, and if their family's not stable, that creates a greater public safety concern and kind of continues the cycle and so I just, I have concerns that this might be a mechanism that would then, you know, increase how much we're using this as a vehicle and what impacts that makes to all of our communities across the state of Arkansas that might actually have a negative impact on public safety. Thank you. Any questions from the committee?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
24:04
Ms. Clark. Um She raises a point that there is concern about Those and and we sit here until she testifies and it's the initial fine. It's the initial court cost. Uh, do we not have lots of cases where
we have numerous failures to appear, and I know the courts have to have a tool to force people to, but do we not have cases where we have lots of those because I know somehow
people who then able to turn their lives around. Or later able to turn their lives around how Some really high Costs that didn't start out that
Speaker 37
24:54
way, don't we? That is absolutely the impact at many times, and one of the things that judges have
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
25:00
once someone is in default is they do have the discretion to Um, reset those funds waive portions of them, and of course
anytime someone has a new phone and they need an installment payment plan, the judge is also required to do that ability to pay determination to make sure that it's actually something that is affordable. Um, that's something that I know Senator Clark has done a lot of work on in previous sessions and continues to do that. OK. I'm sorry, not you, you have to, but also Senator Tucker. You and I have had that conversation over,
Speaker 88
25:36
over that too, but also Senator Tucker. Yes.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
25:40
The any other questions from the committee? Senator Tucker, since we're on
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:46
it, I just want to make sure just so we're all above board. Is there any kinship between Senator Clark and Ms. Clark out here at
Speaker 76
25:53
the end of the time. Not that we know. Not that I know of,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
25:58
not that she's claiming anyway. So any other questions? See none, uh, senator Bryant, would you like to close for your bill? Yeah,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
26:06
thank you. Thank you for for hearing this. I think this is a good tool. I don't
think judges will just go off day one or year one. I think it's when you have defendants continually come up to the courts and the judge sees thousands of dollars piling up, um, and, and obvious signs of just bad choices coming about them and the clients continue to go up and they options are to go to jail to where they can't have the means to make a living or have the courts intercept some of the money that the state owes them through their tax refunds. I think this just is a good valid
tool that the courts should have in their toolbox. So with that, I appreciate a good vote, a motion,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
26:51
and a good. Will of the committee. Motion to pass from center Ds, 2nd from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion? Senator Gilmore
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
27:05
Yeah, and I look forward to having some more discussions with you offline, Senator, and thank you for answering the questions my only concern has been, and
again, I think, I think you're working to address that, and I think we can continue to have those conversations, but my only concern is, you know, we've done a lot of work on trying to address fees, and we're going to continue to do that work, so I just, that's, that's what sort of raises questions in my mind and and I think we can work
through that. So with that I will be voting for her. Any other discussion?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
27:37
Uh I think given the court's a tool to collect from those who aren't paying
it's got to be a 51% at least good idea remains to be seen how the courts implement it. But I think it's cautiously, uh, But uh Any other discussion? Those were the motion signified by saying aye all post. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Bryant. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and with that, I would like to
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
28:17
pause on the additional one I need to get up to education committee for a vote. OK.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
28:24
Well, your pause is going to put you next week. Is that OK? Yes,
Mr. Chair, thank you. I'm going to Representative Warren's not here, if there's somebody here to run Representative Warren's bill. Is there any further business? That I'm missing.
See none. I do not see a reason to meet Monday. Do you all agree? I said I don't see a reason to meet Monday. OK, so we'll be back here next Wednesday at 10 o'clock. We are adjourned. Now I'm gonna go to education.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Call To Order
SB244 J. Bryant CONCERNING POSTPONEMENT OF JUDGMENT IN DISTRICT COURT; AND TO PERMIT A SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE IN CERTAIN DISTRICT COURT CASES.
SB260 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF COURT FINES, FEES, OR COSTS AFTER DEFAULT.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Feb 26, 2025 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 10
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 37
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 41
Speaker 28
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 59
Speaker 80
Sarah Moore
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 76