An Act to amend and reenact § 19.2-303.4 of the Code of Virginia, relating to payment of costs when proceedings deferred.
HB331 amends Virginia Code § 19.2-303.4, which governs cases in which a court defers further proceedings without entering a judgment of guilt and places a defendant on probation under specified deferred-disposition statutes. Under current law, courts must impose costs in these deferred cases. The bill keeps that general framework but changes how those costs are handled for deferrals entered on or after July 1, 2026.
For new deferrals covered by the bill, a court may not require the defendant to pay those costs or related fees as a term or condition of completing the deferral. Once the defendant satisfies the other conditions, the court must resolve the case according to the parties’ agreement, or otherwise by conviction of an alternative charge or dismissal. The bill also makes clear that the costs and fees are not erased by the deferral; they remain owed until paid, and existing collection methods remain available after the case is adjudicated or dismissed.
The bill narrows the practical use of court costs and fees as a condition of deferred proceedings in Virginia for qualifying cases beginning July 1, 2026. It affects circuit and district courts and defendants receiving deferred dispositions under the listed statutes, including certain alcohol, juvenile, domestic violence, sexual offense, drug, and other criminal or delinquency-related provisions. The measure does not eliminate the underlying obligation to pay costs; instead, it shifts those costs out of the deferral conditions while preserving the state’s ability to collect them later.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division in the supplied materials. Based on the enacted text, the bill appears aimed at reducing upfront financial barriers for defendants completing deferred proceedings while preserving cost recovery for the courts. The absence of recorded opposition or amendment history in the provided context suggests the measure moved without documented controversy in the materials supplied.
The main policy tension in HB331 is between easing defendants’ immediate financial burden and preserving court cost collection. Supporters would likely favor removing payment of costs as a condition of successful completion because it can help defendants comply with deferral terms and avoid failure due to inability to pay. Potential critics may object that the bill still leaves costs outstanding and collectible later, which could continue to burden defendants after case resolution, or that it reduces the deterrent effect of requiring payment during the deferral period. No specific individuals, groups, or legislators are identified in the provided record as taking either position.