<p class=ldtitle>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.</p>
Summary
HB660 would expand relief from criminal and traffic court financial obligations for people who are indigent. It adds a new section allowing courts to waive, in whole or in part, a range of statutorily authorized fees when the defendant meets the indigence criteria in existing law and is unable to pay. The bill allows the court to make that determination on its own or on motion by the defendant before the fee is assessed or after final judgment, and it creates a presumption that a person already found indigent is unable to pay unless the court specifically finds otherwise.
The bill also amends existing provisions governing payment of appellate costs for indigent defendants and the court’s authority to remit fines and penalties. It preserves the court’s ability to later remit previously imposed court debt after a show cause proceeding or affirmative petition, while making clear that fee waivers may apply to a broad list of court fees in criminal and traffic cases. In practical terms, the measure would reduce or eliminate certain court-imposed financial burdens for low-income defendants and could lower the amount of fees collected by the courts and related state funds.
Impact
HB660 would change Virginia law by creating an explicit statutory authority for courts to waive many criminal and traffic court fees for indigent defendants, and by tying that authority to the financial criteria already used in the Code of Virginia. It would affect the assessment and collection of fees listed across multiple code sections, likely reducing court debt for qualifying defendants and potentially decreasing revenue to state and local entities that receive those fees. The bill also reinforces existing procedures for appellate expense payment and court remission of fines, while giving courts broader discretion to relieve indigent defendants of financial obligations.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the bill received some support in the Courts of Justice process, but not enough to advance cleanly through Appropriations. A subcommittee initially recommended reporting it, and the full committee later reported it and referred it onward, indicating that the policy idea had at least some traction. However, the final subcommittee action to lay the bill on the table, along with its ultimate status of being left in the Appropriations Committee, suggests hesitation or concern about the fiscal and policy implications.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether courts should have broad authority to waive fees and court debt for indigent defendants, especially given the potential impact on state and local revenues. Supporters would likely view the bill as a fairness measure that prevents inability to pay from turning into lasting court debt, while opponents may worry about reduced fee collections, administrative discretion, and the scope of the waiver authority across many different fee statutes. The referral to Appropriations and the later decision to table the bill indicate that fiscal concerns were likely central to the debate.