Criminal procedure; fees; fines; court; sentencing; revolving fund; effective date.
HB1460 revises several Oklahoma criminal procedure statutes to remove or redirect certain fees and deposits tied to criminal cases, sentencing, indigent defense, and DUI-related offenses. The bill deletes some existing assessments and fund deposits, including certain fees previously collected for laboratory analysis, indigent defense applications, criminal case costs, and DUI-related programs, while preserving or clarifying other assessments such as DNA fees, batterers’ assessment requirements, and victim-impact or treatment-related conditions in sentencing. It also authorizes courts, in specified circumstances, to waive prosecution costs, and updates internal citations and terminology across the affected statutes.
The bill makes targeted changes to sentencing provisions in Title 22, including suspended sentences and deferred sentences, by clarifying when courts may waive prosecution costs and how reductions should be applied. It also amends the indigent defense application fee statute to delete the application fee requirement, revises court cost provisions in criminal cases, and amends DUI law to remove a separate fee deposit tied to impaired-driving cases while leaving the underlying treatment, assessment, and sentencing framework in place. The act is effective November 1, 2025.
HB1460 amends statutes in Titles 20, 22, 28, and 47 of the Oklahoma Statutes, primarily affecting court fees, criminal costs, and the distribution of collected monies to revolving funds and state agencies. It eliminates several fee assessments and associated deposits, including some that previously supported OSBI, CLEET, indigent defense administration, and DUI-related funds, while preserving other court-ordered financial obligations and program requirements. The bill therefore reduces or reallocates certain revenue streams tied to criminal prosecutions and sentencing, and it gives courts limited authority to waive prosecution costs under defined circumstances.
The available voting history shows broad bipartisan support for HB1460 at every stage, with unanimous or near-unanimous committee and floor votes in both chambers and only three no votes on the House fourth reading. That pattern suggests the bill was generally viewed favorably as a technical or fee-adjustment measure rather than a controversial policy overhaul. No committee transcript was provided, so the record reflects strong legislative consensus but limited direct discussion in the materials available.
The main substantive point of tension appears to be the bill’s treatment of prosecution costs and criminal fees: it removes some mandatory assessments while also clarifying that courts may not fully waive prosecution costs except as specifically allowed, and that any reductions should be applied proportionally. Another likely area of concern is the fiscal effect on agencies and funds that previously received these fees, including court clerk operations, OSBI-related funds, CLEET, and indigent defense administration. The bill also preserves or reinforces fee-based obligations in DUI and other criminal sentencing contexts, which may have been important to supporters seeking to maintain accountability and program funding while trimming selected charges.