District Attorney Jacob Putman asked the Smith County Commissioners Court on June 24 to add a third contract appellate attorney and several new positions to the fiscal 2026 budget, saying the office’s caseload and the complexity of appeals have grown faster than staffing.

Putman told the court the county’s criminal filings rose from about 6,300 in 2019 to roughly 7,300 in 2024 and said appellate work requires extensive, time-consuming review. “It’s not unheard of for [an appellate attorney] to spend 80 to 100 hours on a mid- to large-scale case,” Putman said, explaining that two contract appellate lawyers currently handle all indigent felony appeals.

The request to add a third contract appellate lawyer was supported by local judges in the courtroom. Judge Russell Heaton said prior budget cycles had delayed a permanent addition and that repeated extensions on filings reflect an overburdened appellate defense. “We’ve needed it year after year,” Heaton said.

Why it matters: Putman framed the request as a public-safety and fairness issue: defense counsel must review full records and meet strict deadlines, and delays can extend defendants’ time in custody. He also argued a third appellate lawyer would relieve bottlenecks that affect courts, the state’s appellate response workload, and defendants awaiting review.

What Putman asked for: the DA listed three new staff positions as part of his broader budget presentation — an intake assistant, a victim assistance coordinator, and an additional child-protection (CPS) lawyer — plus two targeted scale adjustments for existing positions, additional training funds, and replacement of one vehicle. He provided counts to show the workload: 7,300 criminal cases submitted to the office in 2024, 705 victims classified under the state victim-services standard in 2024, and 391 children who entered CPS custody at some point last year.

Discussion and court questions: Commissioners probed budget history and prior increases in the DA office. Commissioner Moore observed that the DA’s budget has grown materially since 2020 and asked staff to identify unspent or overbudgeted line items as potential offsets. Putman said some line-item transfers in prior years had funded one-time needs such as vehicles but defended the new recurring personnel requests as necessary to avoid service disruption and staff burnout.

On funding constraints: Auditor and county staff clarified limits on how unrestricted year-end fund balances may be used and reminded the court that certain revenue sources—specifically forfeiture funds and some LEO-related accounts—are controlled under statute and by the elected official in charge. County legal counsel cited Chapter 59 as the controlling provision for federal/state/local forfeiture funds and noted the commissioners court cannot direct how those forfeiture funds are spent.

What the court did: This item was presented as part of the budget workshop; no formal appropriation vote was taken on these requests during the June 24 session. Putman said he was available for follow-up and thanked the court for prior support.

Ending: Putman and the judges asked the court to consider the requests as part of the larger budget balancing exercise. Commissioners said staff would continue to review departmental budgets and contingency options before formal votes later in the budget process.