A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 19.2-326 and 19.2-362 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 19.2-362.1, relating to court fines and fees; indigent defendant; waiver of fees.
HB660 would expand a court’s ability to reduce or waive certain criminal and traffic court fees for defendants who are indigent and unable to pay. The bill adds a new section to the Code of Virginia authorizing courts to waive, in whole or in part, a broad list of fees tied to criminal and traffic cases when a defendant meets the indigence criteria already used in Virginia law. It also creates a presumption that a person already found indigent under § 19.2-159 is unable to pay these fees, unless the court specifically finds otherwise, and allows the court to act on its own or on the defendant’s motion before final orders are entered.
The bill also revises existing provisions governing indigent appeals. Under current law, the Commonwealth pays certain attorney fees, costs, and necessary expenses for indigent defendants appealing felony or misdemeanor convictions, and those amounts may later be assessed back against the defendant if the conviction is upheld. HB660 keeps that framework but clarifies the court’s authority to waive fees in criminal and traffic matters and to remit previously imposed court debt through existing procedures. In practical terms, the bill would affect defendants who cannot afford court-imposed financial obligations and would likely reduce the amount of fees collected in qualifying cases.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited but appears neutral to mildly supportive, as the bill was introduced with a group of patrons and was drafted to provide relief to indigent defendants rather than to impose new penalties. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes showing debate, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support in discussion. The bill ultimately did not advance and was left in the House Appropriations Committee, suggesting that fiscal concerns or competing priorities may have prevented further action.
The main point of contention likely concerns the fiscal impact on the court system and state/local revenues, since the bill would authorize broader fee waivers and potentially reduce collections from criminal and traffic cases. Another possible issue is the balance between relieving low-income defendants and preserving court funding, especially because the bill applies to a wide range of statutory fees and allows waiver before final orders are entered. No specific objections are documented in the provided materials, but the appropriations referral and final disposition indicate that cost implications were likely central to the bill’s fate.
HB660 would amend Virginia law to give courts explicit authority to waive a broad set of criminal and traffic court fees for indigent defendants and to presume inability to pay when indigence has already been established under existing financial criteria. It would also preserve and clarify existing rules for payment of appellate expenses for indigent defendants under § 19.2-326 and modify § 19.2-362 to recognize the new waiver provision. The bill would affect defendants in criminal and traffic cases, courts administering fee assessments, and the state/local entities that receive court fee revenue.
The available record suggests a generally sympathetic or reform-oriented sentiment toward the bill’s purpose, since it is aimed at reducing financial burdens on indigent defendants and was introduced by multiple patrons. However, there is no recorded committee debate or vote history to show active support or opposition. Its being left in the Appropriations Committee indicates that, despite the policy goal, fiscal concerns likely limited momentum.
The likely point of contention is whether courts should have broader authority to waive fees that normally support the justice system, and whether the state can absorb the resulting revenue loss. Supporters would favor relief for indigent defendants and easier access to justice, while opponents or budget-minded members may worry about reduced collections, administrative discretion, and the breadth of fees covered. Because no transcripts or votes are provided, these concerns are inferred from the bill’s subject matter and committee disposition rather than from explicit debate.