According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), no significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated for HB. The LBB assumes that any costs associated with the bill could be absorbed using existing resources.

The bill may require courts to appoint counsel in certain additional post-conviction habeas corpus cases involving indigent defendants, but the LBB does not project that this would create a significant state cost. The fiscal note identifies the Office of Court Administration and Texas Judicial Council as the source agencies, indicating that the primary administrative effects would likely relate to the court system.

For local governments, the LBB likewise anticipates no significant fiscal implication. This suggests that any local costs associated with appointed counsel or related court proceedings are expected to be limited or manageable within existing resources.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 2698. The bill modestly expands an existing court-appointed counsel process for indigent defendants seeking post-conviction habeas corpus relief. The bill applies only when the state represents to the convicting court that the defendant has a potentially meritorious claim for relief and the court determines the claim is likely to provide relief. Covered claims include actual innocence, guilt only of a lesser offense, conviction or sentencing under an unconstitutional law, or conviction or sentencing in violation of the Texas or United States Constitution.

The bill does grow the scope of government in a limited way because it broadens the circumstances under which a court must appoint counsel for an indigent defendant. Appointed counsel is a public function and may involve some administrative activity by courts. However, the bill does not create a new agency, office, program, fund, regulatory regime, criminal penalty, or rulemaking authority. The bill analysis specifically states that the bill does not create or increase a criminal offense and does not grant additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.

The bill may increase taxpayer exposure to the extent that more appointed attorneys are required in qualifying habeas cases. That concern is real but appears limited. The Legislative Budget Board anticipates no significant fiscal implication to the state and assumes any costs associated with the bill could be absorbed using existing resources. It also anticipates no significant fiscal implication to units of local government. This suggests that while the bill could increase appointment-related costs in some cases, the expected fiscal effect is not material at the state or local level.

The bill does not increase the regulatory burden on individuals or businesses. It imposes no new licensing requirements, compliance obligations, reporting duties, mandates, taxes, fees, inspections, or penalties on private parties. Its effects are confined to the criminal justice process and the appointment of counsel in a narrow category of post-conviction cases.

On balance, HB 2698 supports individual liberty by helping ensure that indigent defendants with potentially valid claims of unlawful detention have legal representation to investigate and pursue relief. The bill’s government-growth and taxpayer concerns are limited by state and judicial gatekeeping, the absence of new bureaucracy or rulemaking authority, and the LBB’s finding of no significant fiscal implication.