Texas House Bill HB 5240

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 3/14/25

Caption

Relating to the creation of a pretrial intervention and diversion program for certain nonviolent offenses; authorizing a fee.

Summary

HB 5240 creates a new pretrial intervention and diversion program for certain first-time defendants charged with nonviolent offenses. Under the bill, a court may, on joint motion of the defendant and the prosecutor, defer proceedings before trial and allow the defendant to participate in a program established by the prosecuting attorney’s office instead of moving immediately toward adjudication. The program must be guided by written eligibility standards that consider the nature of the offense and any victim input, and it may include community service, restitution, and outside monitoring of compliance. If the defendant successfully completes the program by the court-set deadline, the court must dismiss the proceedings and discharge the defendant. The bill also authorizes district attorneys, criminal district attorneys, and county attorneys to collect reimbursement fees to cover program-related expenses, with a higher maximum fee for the new Article 32.03 diversion program than for existing pretrial intervention programs. The bill applies only to offenses committed on or after September 1, 2025.

Impact

The bill would add Article 32.03 to the Code of Criminal Procedure and expand the statutory framework for pretrial diversion in Texas by expressly authorizing a prosecutor-run diversion option for eligible nonviolent, first-time offenders. It also amends Article 102.0121 to raise the allowable reimbursement fee cap to $1,000 for the new pretrial intervention and diversion program, while keeping the cap at $500 for other pretrial intervention programs. Counties would be able to use collected fees only for administering these programs, subject to commissioners court budget approval.

Sentiment

Based on the available context, the bill appears to be a criminal justice reform measure aimed at giving prosecutors and courts more flexibility to divert low-risk, nonviolent cases away from traditional prosecution. There are no recorded votes or committee transcripts in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the legislative record included here. The bill’s referral to the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee suggests it was treated as a criminal procedure and diversion policy proposal.

Contention

The main potential points of contention are the scope of eligibility, the prosecutor’s discretion in accepting participants, and the fee authorization. Supporters would likely favor the bill for reducing the burden on courts and giving first-time nonviolent defendants a path to avoid conviction, while critics may question whether the program is broad enough, whether victim input is adequately protected, and whether the increased reimbursement fee could create financial barriers for participants. The requirement that the prosecutor’s office establish the program and the ability to contract with outside monitors may also raise concerns about consistency and oversight across counties.