An Act to amend and reenact § 19.2-303.4 of the Code of Virginia, relating to payment of costs when proceedings deferred.
Summary
HB331 amends Virginia Code § 19.2-303.4, which governs court costs in cases where a circuit or district court defers further proceedings without entering a judgment of guilt and places a defendant on probation under certain deferred-disposition statutes. Under the bill, courts must still impose costs when a case is deferred, but for deferrals entered on or after July 1, 2026, those costs and related fees may not be required as a condition of the defendant’s deferral.
The bill also provides that once the defendant satisfies all other terms and conditions, the court must resolve the case according to the parties’ agreement or, if there is no agreement, by conviction of an alternative charge or dismissal. Even though payment cannot be made a condition of the deferral, the underlying costs and fees remain legally due, and existing collection methods remain available after the case is adjudicated or dismissed.
Impact
The bill changes how deferred proceedings interact with court costs and fees in Virginia criminal and related proceedings. It limits courts’ ability to make payment of costs a prerequisite to completing a deferral, but it does not eliminate the debt itself; instead, it preserves the state’s authority to collect unpaid costs after final disposition. The affected statutes are the deferred-disposition and probation provisions cross-referenced in § 19.2-303.4, including several juvenile, misdemeanor, domestic violence, sexual offense, drug, and other diversion-related provisions.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill was ultimately supported, but not unanimously. It cleared subcommittee and committee stages, passed the House, then passed the Senate with a narrow 21-19 vote before the House agreed to the Senate amendment. The pattern indicates general legislative support for the policy change, alongside meaningful concern from some members about its fiscal or procedural effects.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether defendants should be required to pay court costs as a condition of deferred proceedings. Supporters likely viewed the bill as reducing barriers to completing deferrals and avoiding payment-based obstacles to case resolution, while opponents appear to have been concerned about preserving court revenue, collection authority, or the practical consequences of removing payment as a condition. The split votes in committee and the Senate suggest the issue was debated, especially around the balance between access to deferral programs and the continued enforceability of costs and fees.