Loading…
Standing Order #2024-01 (effective March 21, 2024): Assembly Bill 199 reduced the maximum civil assessment from $300 to $100 effective July 1, 2022 and abolished outstanding civil assessment debt as of June 30, 2022; the court imposed civil assessments of $100 from July 1, 2022 under Penal Code § 1214.1 and discontinued imposing them, in each eligible case of a failure to appear or failure to pay, effective July 1, 2023 - judicial discretion to impose a civil assessment remaining, subject to ongoing statutory authority.
California > Fifth Appellate District > Merced County > Superior Court of California, County of Merced
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED 627 W. 21st Street Merced, CA 95340 STANDING ORDER #2024-01 EFFECTIVE MARCH 21, 2024 DISCONTINUING THE IMPOSITION OF CIVIL ASSESSMENTS UPON FAILURE TO APPEAR OR FAILURE TO PAY Pursuant to Assembly Bill 199, effective July 1, 2022, the maximum civil assessment amount that can be imposed was reduced from $300 to $100, and all outstanding civil assessment debt as of June 30, 2022, was abolished. Effective July 1, 2022, the Superior Court, County of Merced began imposing civil assessments at the reduced amount of $100 as authorized by California Penal Code § 1214.1. Effective July 1, 2023, the Superior Court of California, County of Merced discontinued imposing civil assessments in each eligible case in which a defendant has failed to appear or failed to pay. Subject to ongoing statutory authority, judicial discretion to impose a civil assessment remains. MARK V. BACCIARINI PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED 627 W. 21st Street Merced, CA 95340 STANDING ORDER #2024-01 EFFECTIVE MARCH 21, 2024 DISCONTINUING THE IMPOSITION OF CIVIL ASSESSMENTS UPON FAILURE TO APPEAR OR FAILURE TO PAY Pursuant to Assembly Bill 199, effective July 1, 2022, the maximum civil assessment amount that can be imposed was reduced from $300 to $100, and all outstanding civil assessment
Reviewer note: Transcribed 2026-10-15 (California T4 Merced build 2026-10-15) by eye from BenchPath custody ca/t4/ca-merced/docs/general/standing-order-07072026.pdf (11638206 bytes, sha256 3a64db27e5391b6e9054feb5caef786433c02e5204366a95c135937e05e1630f; the compilation “ACTIVE STANDING ORDERS 2006 to Present”, linked as “All Current Standing Orders”; 70 pages - 36 covered by scanned page images (each with a machine reading laid with it - not a card's source), 34 born-digital (one font of the juvenile competency protocol's pages draws its characters shifted)); this order the compilation's page 63, a born-digital page: read on the page images rendered at 200 dpi (vision/img/so-p63.png), transcribed with the compilation's pages 61 to 70 and checked against a RapidOCR reading of the images (at 200 dpi) and the file's own text layer for the same pages, never published: of the transcription's 2678 words, 140 6-word windows were not found in a reading, in 26 spans - 19 spans split into consecutive pieces each found (a page break, a letterhead or signature block the readings interleave, or the readings' line order) and 7 spans read again on the page images and found as transcribed (vision/check-log.txt; evidence/vision-check-2026-10-15.log, evidence/vision-explain-2026-10-15.log). Not part of the text: the compilation's page stamps (“N of 70”) and, where printed, the court's seal, the letterhead's upper-right block, the signature, the running footers and the order's distribution list (cc:), never content (taken out by build/normalize_transcripts.py; the transcriber's file is kept in custody). The transcription's closing note, which describes the pages, is not published. Review note: Rule 17(B) (carded with Rule 17) and the Traffic and Financial Hardship and Ability to Pay Your Fine pages (carded) still warn of civil assessments of up to $100 - the review task on the Rule 17 card.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.