House Bill 722 is a criminal justice debt reform measure aimed at reducing the financial burdens imposed on people involved in the criminal legal system. The bill revises court cost and fee provisions to require courts to consider a defendant’s ability to pay before assessing certain costs, adds procedures and notice requirements before costs can be waived or reduced, and expands the factors courts must consider when setting installment plans. It also repeals one existing statute related to court costs and makes several targeted changes to fees tied to criminal laboratory services, expert witness testimony, and installment payment administration.
The bill also limits enforcement tools used to collect criminal debt. It clarifies that people serving an active sentence in the same case cannot be imprisoned for nonpayment of fines or costs in that case, repeals provisions governing driver’s license revocations for failure to appear or pay, and replaces them with a new prohibition on revocation solely for those reasons. Related changes would also stop DMV actions such as registration withholding in certain circumstances tied to nonpayment, while preserving some existing enforcement and restoration procedures for other offenses and contexts. In addition, the bill allows judicial waiver of the community service program fee for good cause, removes court costs from seat belt infractions, and requires exemption from probation supervision fees when probation is extended only to satisfy monetary obligations.
HB722 would significantly alter North Carolina statutes governing criminal court costs, fee collection, and collateral consequences of unpaid debt. It amends multiple provisions in Chapters 7A, 15A, 20, 50, 110, and 143B of the General Statutes, including repealing G.S. 7A-350 and the driver’s license revocation provisions in G.S. 20-24.1 and 20-24.2, and adding a new G.S. 20-24.3. The bill would narrow when costs may be assessed or enforced, require ability-to-pay considerations, and reduce or eliminate certain fees and penalties tied to failure to appear, seat belt infractions, community service participation, and probation supervision. Its practical effect would be to reduce debt-related sanctions for defendants, limit license and registration consequences, and shift some court and administrative practices toward affordability and waiver-based relief.
The available context shows no committee debate or recorded votes, so there is no documented opposition or support in the provided materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as reform-oriented and debtor-relief focused, with an emphasis on fairness, ability-to-pay considerations, and reducing punitive consequences for unpaid court debt. The sponsors’ framing and the structure of the bill suggest a generally sympathetic posture toward people affected by criminal justice fees and fines.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s reduction of revenue and enforcement tools for courts, counties, the State, and related agencies, and the extent to which it limits traditional collection mechanisms such as license revocation, registration withholding, and incarceration for nonpayment. Stakeholders likely to object could include court administrators, local governments, and agencies that receive fee revenue or rely on debt-collection leverage. On the other hand, criminal justice reform advocates and defendants burdened by court debt would likely support the bill’s ability-to-pay standards, waiver provisions, and removal of collateral penalties. The bill also creates notice and hearing requirements before waiving costs, which may be intended to address concerns from affected government entities.