Texas Administrative Code
Title 1 - ADMINISTRATION
Part 8 - TEXAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL
Chapter 174 - INDIGENT DEFENSE POLICIES AND STANDARDS
Subchapter C - POLICY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Division 2 - POLICY MONITORING PROCESS AND BENCHMARKS
Section 174.28 - On-Site Monitoring Process

Universal Citation: 1 TX Admin Code § 174.28

Current through Reg. 50, No. 13; March 28, 2025

(a) Purpose. The monitoring process promotes local compliance with the requirements of the Fair Defense Act and Commission rules and provides technical assistance to improve processes where needed.

(b) Monitoring Process. The policy monitor examines the local indigent defense plans and local procedures and processes to determine if the jurisdiction meets the statutory requirements and rules adopted by the Commission. The policy monitor also attempts to randomly select samples of actual cases from the period of review by using a 15% confidence interval for a population at a 95% confidence level.

(c) Core Requirements. On-site policy monitoring focuses on the six core requirements of the Fair Defense Act and related rules. Policy monitoring may also include a review of statutorily required reports to the Office of Court Administration and Commission. This rule establishes the process for evaluating policy compliance with a requirement and sets benchmarks for determining whether a county is in substantial policy compliance with the requirement. For each of these elements, the policy monitor shall review the local indigent defense plans and determine if the plans are in compliance with each element.

(1) Prompt and Accurate Magistration.
(A) The policy monitor shall check for documentation indicating that the magistrate or county has:
(i) Informed and explained to an arrestee the rights listed in Article 15.17(a), Code of Criminal Procedure, including the right to counsel;

(ii) Maintained a process to magistrate arrestees within 48 hours of arrest;

(iii) Maintained a process for magistrates not authorized to appoint counsel to transmit requests for counsel to the appointing authority within 24 hours of the request; and

(iv) Maintained magistrate processing records required by Article 15.17(a), (e), and (f), Code of Criminal Procedure, and records documenting the time of arrest, time of magistration, whether the person requested counsel, and time for transferring requests for counsel to the appointing authority.

(B) A county is presumed to be in substantial compliance with the prompt magistration requirement if magistration in at least 98% of the policy monitor's sample is conducted within 48 hours of arrest.

(2) Indigence Determination. The policy monitor checks to see if procedures are in place that comply with the indigent defense plan and the Fair Defense Act.

(3) Minimum Attorney Qualifications. The policy monitor shall check that attorney appointment lists are maintained according to the requirements set in the indigent defense plans. Only attorneys approved for an appointment list are eligible to receive appointments.

(4) Prompt Appointment of Counsel.
(A) The policy monitor shall check for documentation of timely appointment of counsel in criminal and juvenile cases.
(i) Criminal Cases. The policy monitor shall determine if counsel was appointed or denied for arrestees within one working day of receipt of the request for counsel in counties with a population of 250,000 or more, or three working days in other counties. If the policy monitor cannot determine the date the appointing authority received a request for counsel, then the timeliness of appointment will be based upon the date the request for counsel was made plus 24 hours for the transmittal of the request to the appointing authority plus the time allowed to make the appointment of counsel. The policy monitor will determine if any waivers of counsel do not comply with the requirements of Article 1.051, Code of Criminal Procedure. The policy monitor will make a finding if the monitor finds the court did not always explain the procedures for requesting counsel to unrepresented defendants or identifies any cases where a defendant requested counsel and later entered an uncounseled plea without their counsel request being ruled upon.

(ii) Juvenile Cases. The policy monitor shall determine if counsel was appointed prior to the initial detention hearing for eligible in-custody juveniles. If counsel was not appointed, the policy monitor shall determine if the court made a finding that appointment of counsel was not feasible due to exigent circumstances. If exigent circumstances were found by the court and the court made a determination to detain the child, then the policy monitor shall determine if counsel was appointed for eligible juveniles immediately upon making this determination. For out-of-custody juveniles, the policy monitor shall determine if counsel was appointed within five working days of service of the petition on the juvenile.

(B) A county is presumed to be in substantial compliance with the prompt appointment of counsel requirement if, in each level of proceedings (felony, misdemeanor, and juvenile cases), at least 90% of appointments of counsel and denials of indigence determinations in the policy monitor's sample are timely.

(5) Attorney Selection Process. The policy monitor shall check for the following documentation indicating:
(A) In the case of a contract defender program, that all requirements of §§ 174.10 - 174.25 of this title are met;

(B) In the case of a public defender's office, that appointments to the office are made in accordance with Article 26.04(f), Code of Criminal Procedure.

(C) In capital felony cases, the policy monitor shall determine if appointments are made in accordance with Article 26.052, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(i) In counties with a public defender's office that handles capital felony cases, the policy monitor shall determine if a public defender's office is appointed in each capital case. If the office is not, the policy monitor will determine whether the court or its designee made a finding of good cause on the record for appointing other counsel in accordance with Article 26.04(f)(1), Code of Criminal Procedure.

(ii) In capital felony cases where a public defender's office is not appointed, the policy monitor shall determine if two attorneys were appointed, at least one of whom is qualified to serve as lead counsel under Article 26.052(e), Code of Criminal Procedure, unless the state gives notice in writing that the state will not seek the death penalty.

(D) In the case of a managed assigned counsel program, that counsel is appointed according to the entity's plan of operation;

(E) That the attorney selection process actually used matches what is stated in the indigent defense plans; and

(F) For assigned counsel and managed assigned counsel systems, the number of appointments in the policy monitor's sample per attorney at each level (felony, misdemeanor, juvenile, and appeals) during the period of review and the percentage share of appointments represented by the top 10% of attorneys accepting appointments. A county is presumed to be in substantial compliance with the fair, neutral, and non-discriminatory attorney appointment system requirement of 26.04(b)(6), Code of Criminal Procedure, if, in each level of proceedings (felony, misdemeanor, and juvenile cases), the percentage of appointments received by the top 10% of recipient attorneys does not exceed three times their respective share. The top 10% of recipient attorneys is the whole attorney portion of the appointment list that is closest to 10% of the total list. For this analysis, the monitor will include only attorneys who were on an appointment list for the entire time period under review.

(6) Data Reporting. The policy monitor shall check for documentation indicating that the county has established a process for collecting and reporting itemized indigent defense expense and case information.

(d) Report.

(1) Report Issuance. For full and limited-scope reviews, the policy monitor shall submit a draft report to the Commission's Policies and Standards Committee within 60 days after staff receives required data for the monitoring review, unless a documented exception is provided by the director, with an alternative deadline provided, not later than 120 days from the date required data is received. The report shall contain recommendations to address findings of noncompliance. For drop-in visits, the policy monitor may issue a letter with recommendations.

(2) County Response. Within 60 days of the date a report is issued by the policy monitor to the county, the authorized official shall respond in writing to each finding of noncompliance, and shall describe the proposed corrective action to be taken by the county. The county may request the director to grant an extension of up to 60 days.

(3) Follow-up Reviews. The policy monitor shall conduct follow-up reviews of counties where a report included noncompliance findings. The follow-up review shall occur within a reasonable time but not more than two years following receipt of a county's response to a report. The policy monitor shall review a county's implementation of corrective actions and shall report to the county and to the Commission any remaining issues not corrected. Within 30 days of the date the follow-up report is issued by the policy monitor, the authorized official shall respond in writing to each recommendation, and shall describe the proposed corrective action to be taken by the county. The county may request the director to grant an extension of up to 30 days. If the county provides extenuating circumstances, the Executive Director may grant an additional extension of time to respond.

(4) Failure to Respond to Report. If a county fails to respond to a monitoring report or follow-up report within the required time, then a certified letter shall be sent to the authorized official, financial officer, county judge, local administrative district court judge, local administrative statutory county court judge, and chair of the juvenile board notifying them that all further formula grant payments will be withheld if no response to a report is received by the Commission within 10 days of receipt of the letter. If formula grant funds are withheld under this section, then the funds will not be reinstated until the Commission or the Policies and Standards Committee approves the release of the funds.

(5) Noncompliance. If a county fails to correct any noncompliance findings, the Commission may require regular additional reporting of data to determine if process changes are being implemented, and other requirements, as appropriate. The Commission may also impose a remedy under § 173.307 of this title (relating to Remedies for Noncompliance).

Disclaimer: These regulations may not be the most recent version. Texas may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.