VTC Program Overview

HISTORY OF SPECIALTY COURTS

I. PRETRIAL DIVERSION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

III. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - BUFFALO, NEW YORK

I. PRETRIAL DIVERSION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

Described as the "new model of social control," pretrial diversion programs were considered a novel concept as early as 1967 and, significantly, they were "an attempt to standardize ad hoc procedures of an informal discretionary system."[1]

With the evolution of pretrial intervention programs (PTI), advocates and administrators "criticized attempts to define admissions criteria according to criminal status or the particular crime with which a defendant is charged."[2]

II. TREATMENT COURTS

III. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - BUFFALO, NEW YORK

I. PRETRIAL DIVERSION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

"The treatment court is the prototypical and must prevalent problem-solving-court model."[3]

"The organizational principle of treatment courts is that a specific problem with the defendant or the defendant's circumstances contributes to the defendant's criminal behavior. These courts attempt to solve that problem and, by extension, prevent or reduce the offender's future involvement with the criminal justice system. The paradigmatic treatment court is the drug court, the first of which opened in 1989."[4]

III. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - BUFFALO, NEW YORK

"The Buffalo Veterans Treatment Court held its first session in January of 2008. It was the first court that specialized and adapted to meet the specific needs of veterans."[5]

"Eligible veterans are identified through evidence-based screening and assessments."[6]

IV. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - TEXAS

III. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - BUFFALO, NEW YORK

The Texas Legislature enacted the VTC statute in 2009,[7] and, in doing so, adopted the same ten "key components" adopted by the Buffalo VTC.[8] Having done so, it can not be seriously argued that the Legislature was unaware that justice-involved "veterans are a niche population with unique needs[,] [...] which calls for tailored care,"[9] and, more so, for eligibility purposes, they are "identified through evidence-based screening and assessment."[10]

QUICK NAVIGATION

IV. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - TEXAS

QUICK NAVIGATION

Back

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF VTC PROGRAM

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 840 (S.B. 1940), §4, Eff. June 19, 2009

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1205 (S.B. 1474), §3, eff. September 1, 2015

SENATE BILL NO. 1940 – "AN ACT relating to [inter alia] the establishment of pretrial veterans court programs.”

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1205 (S.B. 1474), §3, eff. September 1, 2015

SENATE BILL NO. 1474 – “AN ACT relating to [inter alia] the eligibility for participation in and administration of those programs.”

Significantly, S.B. 1474 expanded the VTC program’s original “limited pool” to include “victims of military sexual trauma” and “other traumas” and, significantly, statutorily defined the State’s penological objectives in “ensuring public safety through rehabilitation” under Section 1.02 of the Penal Code.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 889 (H.B. 3069), §3, eff. September 1, 2017

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1205 (S.B. 1474), §3, eff. September 1, 2015

Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 865 (H.B. 2955), §1, eff. September 1, 2019

HOUSE BILL NO. 3069 – “AN ACT relating to [inter alia] eligibility for participation in a veterans treatment court program and the issuance of orders of nondisclosure for certain participants who successfully complete that program.”

Significantly, H.B. 3069 amended Chapter 411 of the Texas Government Code adding explicit language stating that qualifying JIVs can “petition for an order of nondisclosure of criminal history record information” so long as they have “never been previously convicted of an offense listed in Article 42A.054(a), Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 865 (H.B. 2955), §1, eff. September 1, 2019

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 934 (H.B. 3774), §12.02, eff. September 1, 2021

Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 865 (H.B. 2955), §1, eff. September 1, 2019

HOUSE BILL NO. 2955 – “AN ACT relating to oversight of specialty court programs.”

Significantly, H.B. 2955 changed the “landscape and oversight of specialty courts.” Texas House Committee On Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence, Interim Report To The 88th Texas Legislature, p. 27 (December 2022).

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 934 (H.B. 3774), §12.02, eff. September 1, 2021

In 2021, twelve years after the passage of S.B. 1940, which authorized the establishment of veterans treatment court programs in Texas, H.B. 3774, Section 12.02, made a significant yet unexplained change to VTC law.

LEARN MORE

QUICK NAVIGATION

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 934 (H.B. 3774), §12.02, eff. September 1, 2021

BACK

NATURE OF VTC PROGRAM

I. NATURE OF THE PRE-VTC PROGRAM STAGE: ADVERSARIAL

II. NATURE OF THE VTC COURT AND PROGRAM STAGE: NONADVERSARIAL

With respect to the attorney representing the state during the pre-VTC program stage, the only question is whether the state’s attorney will consent to a defendant’s participation in the program.[11] In that role, the state’s attorney is “the citizen’s primary adversary in a criminal proceeding, who is armed with expansive powers and wide-ranging discretion.”[12]

II. NATURE OF THE VTC COURT AND PROGRAM STAGE: NONADVERSARIAL

While Section 124.002 of the Texas Government Code provides little guidance as to nature of the proceedings in an established veterans treatment court (VTC), as opposed to the VTC program,[13] in a VTC court proceeding, guilt or innocence is not at issue, and the VTC court is not concerned with determining the defendant’s original criminal culpability.[14][15] As such, a VTC court proceeding and the program itself are nonadversarial in nature.[16]

III. THE ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE OF THE VTC PROGRAM

Legislative history supports the administrative nature of the veterans treatment court program. During the Eighty-Fifth Legislature, the caption of House Bill No. 3069 expressly and plainly states: “AN ACT relating to the administration of and eligibility for participation in the [VTC] program.”[17] During the Eighty-Seventh Legislature, the caption of Senate Bill No. 1093 expressly and plainly states: “AN ACT relating to the administration of the [VTC] program.”[18] Likewise, during the same session, the caption of House Bill No. 3774 expressly and plainly states: “AN ACT relating to the operation of and administration of and practice and procedure related to proceedings in the judicial branch of state government.”[19]

QUICK NAVIGATION

III. THE ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE OF THE VTC PROGRAM

Back

PROGRAM STRUCTURE

I. INTRODUCTION

III. STAFFING COMMITTEES

II. STEERING COMMITTEES

Chapter 124 of the Texas Government Code does not “delineate a particular structure for a veterans treatment court program and does not address the employment of staff.”[20] However, “while chapter 124 of the Government Code grants a county commissioners court authority to create staff positions and provide funding when it establishes a veterans treatment court program, the veterans treatment court judge, not the commissioners court, is authorized to select and supervise the staff of a veterans treatment court program.”[21]

II. STEERING COMMITTEES

III. STAFFING COMMITTEES

II. STEERING COMMITTEES

There are at least two VTC programs that expressly report having a "steering committee," namely, the Montgomery County VTC program and the Potter County VTC program. However, it is unknown how many other programs may, in practice, have steering committees.

III. STAFFING COMMITTEES

The Potter County VTC program also mentions having a "staffing committee," but does not explicitly identify who its members are.

IV. TREATMENT TEAMS

III. STAFFING COMMITTEES

Nearly all VTC programs report having a "treatment team."

QUICK NAVIGATION

IV. TREATMENT TEAMS

QUICK NAVIGATION

Legal Analysis of VTC Program Structure

Back

IDENTIFICATION & PLACEMENT

I.

III.

II.

An “essential characteristic” of the Veterans Treatment Court (VTC) program is the “early identification and prompt placement of eligible [justice-involved veterans (JIV)] in the program.”[1] "Early identification of veterans entering the criminal justice system is an integral part of the process of placement in the Veterans Treatment Court program. Arrest can be a traumatic event in a person’s life. It creates an immediate crisis and can compel recognition of inappropriate behavior into the open, making denial by the veteran for the need for treatment difficult."[2]

An illustrative case of just how essential early identification and prompt placement are is that of Daniel Joseph Roe, a former Marine Corps veteran with whom I had the opportunity to interact and provide guidance during my involvement in the Military Veterans Program at Tarrant County Jail, Fort Worth, Texas. I advised Roe against seeking release on bond, instead encouraging him to pursue help through the VTC program. Although he agreed, remaining in confinement in anticipation of some word from the VTC program, no such communication came. Consequently, Roe lost hope, decided he had had enough of jail, didn’t need help after all, and secured his release by posting bail. Tragically, six days following his release, Roe was found dead from a fatal drug overdose.

II.

III.

II.

In 2023 the Council on Criminal Justice, Veterans Justice Commission (CCJ-VJC), reported that, although the “VA has developed tools to allow correctional agencies to identify veteran status independently” such as the VRSS and the Status Query and Response Exchange System (SQUARES), “utilization of these systems remains low. Further, such systems may fail to identify certain individuals as veterans due to the various definitions in use. Ultimately, a failure to identify veteran status may lead to a denial of services that have been specifically designed to aid justice-involved former service members, such as sentencing mitigation statutes and Veterans Treatment Courts.”[3]

In Texas, county sheriffs’ are required by state law to “investigate and verify the veteran status of each prisoner by using data made available from the Veterans Reentry Search Service (VRSS) operated by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs or a similar service.”[4] Notably, while state law authorizes the use of that data “to assist prisoners who are veterans in applying for federal benefits or compensation for which the prisoners may be eligible under a program administered by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs,”[5] the statute does not expressly prohibit the use of the data for other purposes.

III.

Number one on the statutory list of “essential characteristics” of the Texas VTC program is the “integration of services in the processing of cases in the judicial system.”[6] The Specialty Court Resource Center interprets this to mean a “team approach” that “includes the cooperation and collaboration of the traditional partners found in drug treatment courts and mental health treatment courts with the addition of the Veteran Administration Health Care Network, veterans and veterans family support organizations, and veteran volunteer mentors.” Notwithstanding the CCJ-VJC’s 2023 report, the “integration of services” could be reasonably interpreted to include the county sheriff's investigation and verification of the “veteran status of each prisoner.”

IV. QUICK NAVIGATION

III.

In our 2024 study of 28 Texas VTC programs (Regional programs counting as 1 each), we found “published” information on local procedures from only a handful of VTC programs across the state describing the identification process. For example:

“Step 1 actually begins after the criminal justice system identifies the veteran defendant.”[7]
The veteran is identified by the sheriff's office and/or defense attorney.[8]
The veteran is “identified for [the] program by anyone who believes that a person is a Veteran and may be eligible for the program.”[9]
“[E]ligible veterans are identified through self-identification, screening and assessments.”[10]
“Eligible defendants are identified immediately after arrest and are referred to [the VTC] for screening. Once the JIV has been screened, assessed, and approved for participation in the program, he/she promptly begins a treatment regimen that is specific to the individual's needs.”[11]
“[E]ligible veterans, are identified through jail and court screening and assessments, lawyer and District Attorney-referrals, and self-referrals.”[12]

Additionally, programs accept referrals “from a variety of sources, including law enforcement, jail staff, judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, mental health professionals, and family or friends,"[13] including self-referrals.[14] Many VTC programs haven’t published information at all about their identification or referral policies or procedures.

V. QUICK NAVIGATION

The methods of identification and referral mentioned above support the CCJ-VJC’s report that the VRSS or SQUARES are either unutilized, underutilized, unreliable and the data unshared with VTC programs (or a combination of all four) by county sheriff’s departments. When it comes to the question of justice-involved veterans falling through the cracks in the system, those methods should raise concerns over (1) the reliability of just “anyone” identifying a justice-involved veteran and just “anyone’s” knowledge of VTC program eligibility criteria, (2) self-identification when there are justice-involved veterans who feel ashamed by their involvement with the criminal justice system or their military discharge type and thus will not readily disclose their veteran status, (3) based on personal experience and observation during my one-year confinement in the Tarrant County Jail, the advocacy of defense attorneys is suspect at best, and (4) the advocacy of prosecutors is too unrealistic to be expected, especially when military discharge type and criminal offenses/history eligibility criteria can be vastly different from one VTC program to the next.

QUICK NAVIGATION

Recommendations of the Council on Criminal Justice

BACK

PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY

I. Texas Government Code, Section 124.002(a)

II. “Any (adjective): every – used to indicate one selected without restriction."[3]

A VTC program is established "for [justice-involved veterans (JIV)] arrested for, charged with, convicted of, or placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for any misdemeanor or felony offense. A [JIV] is eligible to participate in a [VTC] program [...] only if the attorney representing the state consents to the [JIV's] participation in the program[.]" Texas Government Code, sec. 124.002(a)(emphasis added).

II. “Any (adjective): every – used to indicate one selected without restriction."[3]

The plain language of Section 124.002(a), Government Code, evinces clear legislative intent to allow justice-involved veterans with “any” misdemeanor or felony offense to participate in a VTC program. Moreover, the Legislature obviously knows how to create expressed exceptions to eligibility when it wishes to do so.[1] It did not, however, choose to create an exception here.[2][3]

III. vtc ELIGIBILITY IS CONTINENT ON THE occurrence OF TWO EVENTS

II. “Any (adjective): every – used to indicate one selected without restriction."[3]

III. vtc ELIGIBILITY IS CONTINENT ON THE occurrence OF TWO EVENTS

For eligibility purposes, Section 124.002(a), Government Code, clearly provides for the occurrence of two events transpiring by the use of the conjunctive "and," as used in the context of, "only if the attorney representing the state consents to the [justice-involved veterans] participation in the program AND if the court in which the criminal case is pending [...] finds [certain enumerated conditions]" (emphasis and capitalization added).

IV. JIV ELIGIBILITY FOR vtc pROGRAM: mILITARY CONNECTED ISSUES

V. JIV ELIGIBILITY FOR VTC PROGRAM: NON-MILITARY CONNECTED ISSUES

III. vtc ELIGIBILITY IS CONTINENT ON THE occurrence OF TWO EVENTS

In addition to the consent of the attorney representing the state, a justice-involved veterans' eligibility for a veterans treatment court program is contingent upon the "court in which the criminal case is pending [...], find[ing] that the [justice-involved veteran] [...] (1) suffers from [...] injury, illness, disorder, or trauma [that]: (A) occurred during or resulted from the [JIV's] military service; and (B) affected the [JIV's] criminal conduct at issue in the case;" (continued next section).

V. JIV ELIGIBILITY FOR VTC PROGRAM: NON-MILITARY CONNECTED ISSUES

"OR (2) is a [JIV] whose participation in a veterans treatment court program, considering the circumstances of the [JIV's] conduct, personal and social background, and criminal history, is likely to achieve the objective of ensuring public safety through rehabilitation of the veteran in the manner provided by Section 1.02(1) of the Penal Code." Texas Government Code, sec. 124.002(a)(1)(A)-(B) & (2)(emphasis and capitalization added).

VIII. CONCLUSION

V. JIV ELIGIBILITY FOR VTC PROGRAM: NON-MILITARY CONNECTED ISSUES

By which ever standard or criteria applied by the attorney representing the state and/or the court in which a justice-involved veteran's case is pending, the very nature of the governmental functions involved at both the Federal and State levels -- I.e., "To care for him who shall have borne the battle ..." - President Abraham Lincoln -- requires more procedural protection than merely "delegat[ing] basic policy matters" to the attorney representing the state for determination of justice-involved veterans' eligibility for the VTC program "on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application."[4]

QUICK NAVIGATION

BACK

CRIMINOGENIC RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

I. VETERANS AND CRIMINOGENIC FACTORS

II. TEXAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM & CRIMINOGENIC RISK/NEEDS ASSESSMENT

In the context of drug courts,[26] of which veterans treatment court is a "hybrid,"[27][28] drug addiction is "criminogenic and, therefore treating the addiction instead of incarcerating the defendant is a more effective and long-lasting response to drug-related criminal behavior."[29][30]

With respect to veterans, "[t]he uniqueness of [their] needs is said to derive from the impact of military service, in particular the traumatic and potentially criminogenic impact of combat"[31]

II. TEXAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM & CRIMINOGENIC RISK/NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Criminogenic risk and needs assessment is utilized throughout Texas criminal justice system decision-making, from sex offender treatment,[32] substance abuse treatment,[33] reentry and community supervision,[34] and juvenile justice.[35]

Quick navigation

II. TEXAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM & CRIMINOGENIC RISK/NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Quick navigation

Recommendations

Back

NOTES

1. Kenneth W. Macke, Pretrial Diversion from the Criminal Process, 83 Yale L.J. 827, 827 (1975).

2. State v. Leonardis, 71 N.J. 85, 102, 363 A.2d 321, 330 (1976)("Besides being arbitrary, such categorizations may bear only a tenuous relationship to the rehabilitative function of PTI. Because rehabilitation is dependent on an individual's propensity for correction, conditioning his admission solely on the nature of his crime may be both arbitrary and illogical. Greater emphasis should be placed on the offender than on the offense.").

3. Erin R. Collins, Status Courts, 105 Geo. L.J. 1481, 1488 (2017).

4. Id.

5. Judge Robert T. Russell, Veterans Treatment Court: A Proactive Approach, 35 New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 357, 364 (2009).

6. Id., at 368 (emphasis and underscore added).

7. Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 840 (S.B. 1940), Sec. 4, Eff. June 19, 2009 (now codified at Chapter 124, Government Code).

8. See S.B. 1940, supra, Section 4, Tx. Health & Safety Code, sec. 617.001 (now codified at Section 124.001, Government Code) and compare with Russell, Veterans Treatment Court, supra, at 364-67.

9. Russell, at 363.

10. Id., at 368.

11. See, Tex. Gov’t Code, § 124.002(a).

12. Young v. U.S. ex. rel, Louis Vuitton et Fils, S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 813 (1987). See also, Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978), accord, Neal v. State, 150 S.W.3d 169, 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

13. “Chapter 124’s provisions describe a ‘veterans treatment court program’ and a ‘veterans treatment court’ as distinct concepts without expressly specifying the court’s authority with respect to the program. […] However, a veterans treat court program is, by its very nature, a program of the veterans treatment court. […] Chapter 124’s inclusion of the court’s duties within the definition and duties of a veterans treatment court program reveals that such a program performs or assists the performance of a judicial function.” Texas Attorney General Opinion, KP-0146, p. 2 (2017). See also, Tex. Gov’t Code, § 124.001(b)(referring to “a hearing in the veterans treatment court” without reference to the term “program.”)

14. Essentially, a veterans treatment court program involves negotiated concessions or an agreement between the defendant and the prosecution, as opposed to a defendant entering a direct guilty plea.

15. Likewise, a VTC court does not have the authority to order a dismissal or expunction of the criminal case of a program participant “who was arrested for or charge with, but not convicted of or placed on deferred adjudication for, an offense completes a veterans criminal court program,” but rather, that authority is vested in “the court in which the criminal case is pending.” Tex. Gov’t Code, §124.001(b).

16. An “essential characteristic” of the VTC program is “the use of nonadversarial approach involving prosecutors and defense attorneys to promote public safety and to protect the due process rights of program participants.” Texas Government Code, § 124.001(a)(2).

17. Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 889 (H.B. 3069), Caption, Eff. Sept. 1, 2017 (amending Sections 124.001 - .003, Tex. Gov’t Code).

18. Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 160 (S.B. 1093), Caption, Eff. May 28, 2021 (amending Sections 124.003, .006, Tex. Gov’t Code).

19. Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S. Ch. 934 (H.B. 3774), Caption, Eff. Sept. 1, 2021 (amending Sections 124.003, .006, Tex. Gov’t Code).

20. Texas Attorney General Opinion, No. KP-0146, p.2 (May 8, 2017).

21. Id., p. 4.

26. The Texas drug court program was established by the Legislature in 2001. Acts 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1510 (H.B. 1287), Sec, 1, Eff. Sept. 1, 2001 (now codified at Chapter 123, Government Code).

27. Judge Robert T. Russell, Veterans Treatment Court: A Proactive Approach, 35 New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 357, 365 (2009).

28. See, S.B. 462, Senate Committee Report, Bill Analysis ("[T]he drug court model has often been replicated in order to divert nonviolent offenders suffering from mental health and/or substance abuse issues from the criminal justice system intensive treatment programs.").

29. Erin R. Collins, Status Courts, 105 Geo. L.J. 1481, 1488 (2017)(emphasis and underscore added).

30. For a comprehensive discussion on criminogenic assessment, see, Edward J. Latessa, et al., Community Supervision and Violent Offenders: What the Research Tells Us and How to Improve Outcomes, 103 Marq. L. Rev. 911 (2019).

31. Status Courts, supra. (emphasis and underscore added).

32. In 2006, the Council on Sex Offender Treatment adopted standards and practice requiring treatment programs to "target specific criminogenic needs to reduce re-offense rates." 22 Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Rule 810.62.

33. In 2011, the Community Justice Assistance Division adopted amendments to 37 TAC Rule 163.40, related to substance abuse treatment definitions and criteria, that incorporated "criminogenic risks and needs."

34. In 2013, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice was mandated to "adopt a standardized instrument to assess, based on criminogenic factors, the risks and need of each offender in the adult criminal justice system" and to make the instrument available to community supervision departments." Tex. Government Code, sec. 501.0921(a)-(b).

35. In 2017, the Texas Juvenile Justice Department adopted criminogenic risks and needs assessment. See, 37 TAC Rules 341.00(7), .502(c), .504(1)(A)-(B), .506(c)(1)-(2).

------------------------- IDENTIFICATION AND PLACEMENT

1. Texas Government Code, § 124.001(a)(3).

2. Specialty Courts Resource Center, Key Component #3. See, Judge Robert T. Russell, Veterans Treatment Court: A Proactive Approach, 35 New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 357, 365-66 (2009)(stating same); and LeRoy J. Kondo, Advocacy of the Establishment of Mental Health Specialty Courts in the Provision of Therapeutic Justice for Mentally Ill Offenders, 28 Am. J. Crim. L. 255, 299 (2001)(recognizing "early identification" as a factor of successful jail diversion programs).

3. Seamone, E. R. (2023). Who’s a Veteran? Challenges In Defining and Identifying Veteran- Status. Council on Criminal Justice, p. 7. https://counciloncj.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Whos_A_Veteran_Final.pdf (citing Council on Criminal Justice. (2022). From Service Through Reentry: A Preliminary Assessment of Veterans In the Criminal Justice System. https://counciloncj.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Preliminary_Assessment.pdf).

4. Texas Government Code §511.009(a)(17)(A).

5. Id., §511.009(a)(17)(B).

6. Texas Government Code §124.001(a)(1).

7. Denton County VTC Program, Information and Instructions (March 2023), p. 6.

8. Dallas County VTC, Interview, Program Manager (Sept. 25, 2024).

9. Panhandle Regional VTC, Policy And Procedure Manual (Sept. 2022), p. 3.

10. Travis County VTC website, https://www.traviscountytx.gov/courts/criminal/specialty/vets (accessed Sept. 23, 2024).

11. Travis County VTC, Policy And Procedure Manual (Sept. 1, 2022), p. 3. In contrast, however, “Step 1” under the manual’s referral and application process provides that the justice-involved veteran or his/her attorney will “ordinarily” request the prosecutor that the veteran be considered for the VTC program. Id., p. 9.

12. Hays County VTC website, https://www.hayscountytx.gov/veterans-court (accessed Sept. 23, 2024).

13. Fort Bend County VTC website, https://www.fortbendcountytx.gov/government/departments/county-courts-at-law/county-court-at-law-2/veterans-court-program (accessed Sept. 23. 2024).

14. Brazoria County VTC Program Brochure (Jan. 1, 2022)(“If you believe you are a qualifying veteran and would like to apply to the Veterans Court program, please notify court staff, jail personnel, or a Brazoria County Veterans Service Officer immediately.”); Galveston County VTC website, https://www.galvestoncountytx.gov/county-offices/veterans-treatment-court (accessed Sept. 23, 2024)(same).

-------------------------------- PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY --------------------

1. E.g., Tex. Gov’t Code § 508.149 (mandatory supervision release); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 42A.102(a)-(b)(1)-(4) (deferred adjudication community supervision), 42A.054(a)-(d) (community supervision), 55.01(a-1), (c) (expungement of criminal record); Tex. Hum. Resources Code § 33.018(b)-(c) (supplemental nutrition assistance program); Tex. Occ. Code §§§ 164.102 (physician probation), 1704.153 (bail bond license), 2001.207 (distributor’s license); just to name a few.
2. See, Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., 618 S.W.2d 535, 540 (Tex.1981) (stating that if the legislature intended for a particular statute to impose certain restrictions, the legislature could have easily done so; the fact that the legislature did not do so suggests that it intended not to do so).

3. Notably, during the 88th Texas Legislative session, H.B. 2864 and H.B. 3882 were introduced, but failed to pass to become law, that would have addressed the issue of granting the state's attorney unfettered discretion. Significantly, H.B. 3882's Bill Analysis noted that, "The Director of Government and Legislative Affairs with Texas Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (C.U.R.E.) has brought up the fact that state law relating to veterans treatment court programs restricts participation in these programs to defendants to whom the state's attorney consents, provided the court makes the requisite findings in the case. When the state's attorney has complete power to grant or deny a veteran access to these programs, there can be conflicts of interest at the expense of veterans who are otherwise eligible and could benefit from participating in a treatment program."

4. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 400 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99 (1970). See also, Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 264, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1019 (1970)("[I]mportant government interests are promoted by affording recipients a pre-termination evidentiary hearing.")

BACK

TEXAS VTC PROGRAM OVERVIEW

FEATURED ON THIS PAGE:

FEATURED ON THIS PAGE:

FEATURED ON THIS PAGE:

FEATURED ON THIS PAGE:

FEATURED ON THIS PAGE:

QUICK NAVIGATION

FEATURED ON THIS PAGE:

QUICK NAVIGATION

HISTORY OF SPECIALTY COURTS

I. PRETRIAL DIVERSION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

III. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - BUFFALO, NEW YORK

I. PRETRIAL DIVERSION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

II. TREATMENT COURTS

III. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - BUFFALO, NEW YORK

I. PRETRIAL DIVERSION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

III. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - BUFFALO, NEW YORK

III. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - BUFFALO, NEW YORK

III. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - BUFFALO, NEW YORK

IV. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - TEXAS

IV. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - TEXAS

III. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - BUFFALO, NEW YORK

QUICK NAVIGATION

IV. VETERANS TREATMENT COURT - TEXAS

QUICK NAVIGATION

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF VTC PROGRAM

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 840 (S.B. 1940), §4, Eff. June 19, 2009

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1205 (S.B. 1474), §3, eff. September 1, 2015

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1205 (S.B. 1474), §3, eff. September 1, 2015

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1205 (S.B. 1474), §3, eff. September 1, 2015

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1205 (S.B. 1474), §3, eff. September 1, 2015

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1205 (S.B. 1474), §3, eff. September 1, 2015

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 889 (H.B. 3069), §3, eff. September 1, 2017

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1205 (S.B. 1474), §3, eff. September 1, 2015

Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 865 (H.B. 2955), §1, eff. September 1, 2019

Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 865 (H.B. 2955), §1, eff. September 1, 2019

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 934 (H.B. 3774), §12.02, eff. September 1, 2021

Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 865 (H.B. 2955), §1, eff. September 1, 2019

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 934 (H.B. 3774), §12.02, eff. September 1, 2021

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 934 (H.B. 3774), §12.02, eff. September 1, 2021

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 934 (H.B. 3774), §12.02, eff. September 1, 2021

QUICK NAVIGATION

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 934 (H.B. 3774), §12.02, eff. September 1, 2021

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 934 (H.B. 3774), §12.02, eff. September 1, 2021

VTC PROGRAM STATUTORY LAW: TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE

CHAPTER 121

QUICK NAVIGATION

CHAPTER 121

CHAPTER 124

QUICK NAVIGATION

CHAPTER 121

QUICK NAVIGATION

QUICK NAVIGATION

QUICK NAVIGATION

NATURE OF VTC PROGRAM

I. NATURE OF THE PRE-VTC PROGRAM STAGE: ADVERSARIAL

II. NATURE OF THE VTC COURT AND PROGRAM STAGE: NONADVERSARIAL

II. NATURE OF THE VTC COURT AND PROGRAM STAGE: NONADVERSARIAL

II. NATURE OF THE VTC COURT AND PROGRAM STAGE: NONADVERSARIAL

II. NATURE OF THE VTC COURT AND PROGRAM STAGE: NONADVERSARIAL

II. NATURE OF THE VTC COURT AND PROGRAM STAGE: NONADVERSARIAL

III. THE ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE OF THE VTC PROGRAM

III. THE ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE OF THE VTC PROGRAM

III. THE ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE OF THE VTC PROGRAM

QUICK NAVIGATION

III. THE ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE OF THE VTC PROGRAM

III. THE ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE OF THE VTC PROGRAM

PROGRAM STRUCTURE

I. INTRODUCTION

III. STAFFING COMMITTEES

II. STEERING COMMITTEES

II. STEERING COMMITTEES

III. STAFFING COMMITTEES

II. STEERING COMMITTEES

III. STAFFING COMMITTEES

III. STAFFING COMMITTEES

III. STAFFING COMMITTEES

IV. TREATMENT TEAMS

IV. TREATMENT TEAMS

III. STAFFING COMMITTEES