According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 305 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The mandated procedural change—requiring certain pretrial hearings to be held within 14 days of a defendant’s restoration to competency—is not anticipated to generate costs beyond what can already be handled by the judiciary’s existing resources. This assessment implies that courts have sufficient administrative capacity to implement the change without requiring additional funding or personnel.

For local governments, the fiscal impact is also projected to be minimal. While the bill could marginally accelerate court schedules in applicable jurisdictions, no new costs are expected that would significantly burden local court systems. Courts already handle scheduling and managing pretrial hearings; this bill primarily imposes a timeline rather than introducing new procedures or infrastructure needs. As such, it is assumed that local jurisdictions can comply within their current operational frameworks.

Overall, the fiscal note suggests the bill is financially neutral for both state and local entities. It introduces a procedural improvement that aligns with existing court responsibilities, avoiding the need for new expenditures while promoting efficiency in the criminal justice process.

HB 305 offers a narrowly tailored procedural reform aimed at safeguarding the due process rights of criminal defendants who have been restored to competency. The bill mandates that, in certain jurisdictions, a court must conduct a pretrial hearing on critical evidentiary or procedural matters within 14 days after a defendant is found competent. This requirement targets a well-documented problem: delays in resuming criminal proceedings after competency restoration, which in some cases have led to defendants regressing into incompetency while awaiting trial. The bill directly addresses this gap without expanding state power or creating new criminal offenses.

The substitute version improves upon the originally filed bill by refining its scope and reducing its timeline. It applies only to jurisdictions already bound by a 14-day deadline for resuming proceedings after competency is restored and limits the mandate to hearings necessary for moving the case forward. This careful narrowing balances judicial efficiency with the practical constraints of local courts, avoiding overreach while ensuring procedural diligence. The fiscal note supports this restrained approach, stating that no significant costs are expected for state or local governments, and that implementation can be handled with existing resources.

From a liberty-focused standpoint, HB 305 upholds individual liberty by reducing the risk of unnecessary incarceration and protecting the right to a speedy trial. It reinforces limited government by setting a clear boundary on judicial delay without expanding judicial or prosecutorial powers. While it has no bearing on economic liberty or property rights, its procedural clarity contributes to a more just and efficient criminal justice system.

Given its targeted purpose, procedural clarity, and minimal fiscal impact, HB 305 merits a favorable vote as a constructive, liberty-aligned reform. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 305.

• Individual Liberty: The bill reinforces the constitutional rights of criminal defendants by reducing unnecessary delays in the legal process after a person has been restored to competency. Defendants deemed competent to stand trial retain the full range of due process rights, including the right to a speedy trial and timely adjudication. By mandating a pretrial hearing within 14 days in applicable jurisdictions, the bill protects defendants from languishing in jail and potentially deteriorating again into incompetency while awaiting court action—an outcome that harms both justice and individual well-being.
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill is largely procedural, it indirectly supports personal responsibility by ensuring defendants who have been restored to mental competency are promptly given the opportunity to face trial and resolve their charges. In doing so, it helps reestablish the legal accountability of individuals who are once again capable of participating in their defense and engaging with the judicial system.
• Free Enterprise: HB 305 does not directly affect the principle of free enterprise. It contains no provisions related to economic freedom, business operations, labor markets, or commercial regulation. Therefore, its impact on free enterprise is neutral.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not touch on private property rights. It deals exclusively with criminal procedure following competency restoration and has no bearing on land use, ownership, eminent domain, or any regulatory or legal issues involving property.
• Limited Government: HB 305 sets a firm but narrow procedural timeline, promoting efficiency and accountability within the judiciary without creating new regulatory frameworks, expanding prosecutorial power, or increasing incarceration. It does not grow the size or scope of government; rather, it limits judicial discretion where delays have historically undermined the fair administration of justice. This restraint reflects a principle of ensuring government acts only as necessary to protect rights, not infringe upon them.

• SB 2096 (Same As)