Dear Senator Kefalas,
HB 16-1309 requires the presence of a public defender at each session of jail advisements,
which are scheduled daily in many municipal courts. HB 16-1309 disproportionately effects
rural communities, provides protections that are already provided to defendants, creates
several unintended consequences, and is logistically near impossible to implement
without adequate state funding.
The bill is unnecessary.
The appointment of counsel for defendants being held on municipal charges is already
required under the U.S. Constitution and the Colorado Constitution. If the defendant is not
released on a charge at the first appearance, the municipal court must appoint counsel. Currently,
the attorney then appears at the next court appearance after time to review the case, meet with
the defendant and formulate appropriate legal advice.
The appointment of attorney may result in a case to be unnecessarily continued.
Many municipal cases are resolved at the first appearance, often with credit for time served or a
fine. These defendants are then released. The presence of an attorney with no ability to advise
a defendant will unnecessarily delay the process, since a continuance must occur to allow the
attorney to review the case reports and file.
Most arrests occur after the defendant has failed to appear on a summons.
Courts generally grant personal recognizance bonds (P.R. bonds) when the defendant has
failed to appear a few times on a case; but after numerous missed court dates, the court must
consider the unnecessary waste of taxpayer resources with numerous arrests for the same
charge. The court then has good reason to keep the defendant in custody to resolve the case.
Municipal cases are often resolved at the first appearance allowing the court to release the
defendant immediately with credit for time served or with an alternative sentence such as a fine
or community service.
HB 16-1309 is unfunded state mandate.
This bill directly contradicts C.R.S. 29-1-304.5 which states:
“(1) No new state mandate or an increase in the level of service for an existing state mandate
beyond the existing level of service required by law shall be mandated by the general assembly
or any state agency on any local government unless the state provides additional moneys to
reimburse such local government for the costs of such new state mandate or such increased
level of service. In the event that such additional moneys for reimbursement are not provided,
such mandate or increased level of service for an existing state mandate shall be optional on the
part of the local government.”