Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Tsosie

DATE TYPED 02/14/05 HB

SHORT TITLE Court Costs Refunds in Certain Cases

SB 687

ANALYST McSherry

REVENUE

Estimated Revenue

Subsequent

Years Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

Indeterminate

Indeterminate Recurring

General Fund

Indeterminate

Indeterminate Recurring

Court Facilities

Fund

Indeterminate

Indeterminate Recurring Civil Legal Services

Fund

Indeterminate

Indeterminate Recurring Court Automation

Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Bill 687 amends the Chapter, “Court Funds and Administration” by creating a new sec-

tion, “Refund of Fees Permitted for Non-indigent Criminal Defendants” and amending Sections

34-5-6, “Court of Appeals—Fees and Costs,” and 34-6-40, “Finance—Fees.”

The proposed new language provides for the refunding of the following fees to a non-indigent

criminal defendant who is either not convicted or whose conviction is overturned: fees collected

by a supreme court clerk, fees collected by a clerk of the court of appeals, and the fees collected

by a district court clerk when the state does not appeal within statutory time frames.

The bill proposes that fees would be refunded or returned “upon request.”

Senate Bill 687 -- Page 2

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

This bill does not include an appropriation.

Should this bill be enacted, the level of funding received in the court facilities fund, civil legal

services fund, court automation fund, and general fund would likely decrease by some amount.

It is not clear, however, what amount of funding would be potentially refunded.

The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) reports that the refunding of fees upon request

will require an allocation of additional resources as a result of increased clerk and financial staff

time and involvement. AOC reports that fees are deposited in multiple funds after they are col-

lected, and the refunds would need to be taken from the individual funds.

There will be a minimal administrative cost for statewide update, distribution, and documenta-

tion of statutory changes.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

AOC reports that additional administrative time would be required to refund the fees collected

and track the removal of funds.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

There are no known conflicts or duplications relating to this bill.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

It is not clear what manner in which the nonindegent criminal defendants with a conviction over-

turned would be required to request refunded fees and costs. Would the request have to be made

by a certain time, or in a certain format (written, in person, etc.).

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL.

Fees will continue to be retained when collected from nonindigent criminal defendants whose

convictions are overturned.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

Is it known how much funding would be eligible for refund should this bill be enacted. If so,

how much funding would potentially be refunded from the affected funds.

EM/yr