A deferred adjudication, also known in some jurisdictions as an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACOD), probation before judgment (PBJ), or deferred entry of judgment (DEJ), is a form of plea deal available in various jurisdictions, where a defendant pleads "guilty" or "no contest" to criminal charges in exchange for meeting certain requirements laid out by the court within an allotted period of time also ordered by the court.
Anyone offered deferred adjudication in exchange for a guilty plea should first consult their attorney regarding the exact consequences of doing so.
Because the judgment is not entered as "guilty," a PBJ does not legally count as a conviction for a crime, and therefore the defendant is spared some hardships of having a criminal record, e.g. for purposes of job applications he or she does not have to disclose it as a conviction, though a full criminal background check will still reveal the case.
[5] The defendant, however, is still placed on probation and can be compelled to pay a monetary fine or other restitution, enroll in a drug rehabilitation program, work community service hours, and/or less frequently, sentenced to imprisonment or alternative confinement.
[page needed] If the defendant carries out their sentence and behaves within the conditions of their probation (i.e. commits no further crimes), they become eligible for expungement three years after the judgment or when their probation ends, whichever is later (in some cases they can file early if they can show "good cause" to a judge).
The attorney for the state and the defendant may enter into a written filing agreement respecting a pending indictment, information or complaint.
In the event the attorney for the state files a motion during or at the end of the filing period alleging a violation of one or more of the agreement's conditions, the attorney for the state is entitled to have the criminal proceeding reactivated by the court if, following a hearing on the motion, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated one or more of the agreement's conditions.
If the attorney for the state wishes to preserve the right to reinitiate a criminal proceeding after the filing period has fully run when no breach of conditions has occurred, or to preserve the right to initiate the same or additional criminal charges against the defendant arising out of the same event or conduct in a separate criminal proceeding while the filing period is running, the attorney for the state must expressly reserve such a right in the written filing agreement and the defendant must expressly agree to it.
In determining the amount of the fee, the court shall take into account the financial resources of the person and the nature of the burden its payment imposes.
§ 1348-B, which requires that the Court hold a sentencing hearing wherein the defendant has the burden by showing as a preponderance of the evidence that they have complied with the terms of the deferred disposition agreement.
If during the course of the agreement, the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the defendant is not complying with the deferred disposition agreement or has committed new criminal conduct, the prosecutor may then move the Court to terminate the deferred disposition and impose sentence on the original charge.
The Court will set a hearing on this motion, where the prosecutor must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant failed to comply.
In the State of Texas, deferred adjudication is not treated as a criminal conviction as a matter of law; however, there is no easy way to remove the record of the case from one's background.
This creates difficulties with private entities performing background checks such as employers and apartment complexes, as they can see the case, charge and its outcome, and often simply treat it the same as though it were a conviction for purposes of their review.
To date the State of Texas has passed into law the Order of Nondisclosure where criminal justice agencies (law enforcement, community supervision e.g. probation) are prohibited from disclosing to the public criminal history record information related to the offense for which defendant successfully completed deferred adjudication community supervision.
It used to be practice for a judge to give a pending convict the option of joining the military, or serving prison time (R. Lee Ermey being one prominent example of this).
The myth still lives on in legends involving the U.S. military, especially as some servicemen themselves perpetuate it, and it may still in fact be rarely unofficially issued.
One such case of the ban's enforcement arose in 2006, where a New York judge gave a man this option in lieu of spending up to a year in jail for aggravated assault.