[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6152287,"mediaKeyId","5499132-a6e8b0ea6743a831ed104a1e8c6d0174","parentId",5499132,"title","Judge to Continue Hearing on Motion to Suppress Attorney-Client Recording After Alleged Threats in San Antonio Custody Case","audioSeconds",6564,"startMs",5711000,"endMs",12275000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5499132-a6e8b0ea6743a831ed104a1e8c6d0174&start=5711&end=12275","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5499132-a6e8b0ea6743a831ed104a1e8c6d0174/thumbnail_5711000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6152287/Texas/Judge-to-Continue-Hearing-on-Motion-to-Suppress-Attorney-Client-Recording-After-Alleged-Threats-in-San-Antonio-Custody-Case","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6152287-69a8508abb0301bcd5c28bb612c7a537/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159289&Signature=NxAvfpK9ZAxqBvkM9LMNvAmslZyfgvGQu-RhnYc61AJNW-s3XAibRwJTHMKwnsSoKE-i~z92KFa5IWpADS-7J--FhGHhUPjISiNwrno9LRNe1~8eiscsQUTEAmQNEV-P-4-y~9m46pt0vEm~B1jrjHq-q8ibTA-2xcRATLVxrn4K-B-urrOKjV0mburUiKTqxWK6wgb~y6gDJGQvyXKFFmqr879dfpjj27eVKi~SJXtsylBa99IBTxznrOLXSj3~REndAldcNOx6FtVy7igByUniR6WpvFKAdpJ1mVH2zRadtDxDXJkrN2eZ4PaurGfGl9~t651UqjtR7soe0QGgkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-28T22:10:34Z","article","A judge in Bexar County on July 28 continued arguments on a defense motion to suppress a recorded conversation between defendant Ronald Lamar Allen and his former civil attorney, Charles Michael Ireland Jr., after testimony from the former attorney and a law-enforcement investigator.

The issue before the court was whether portions of the recording were protected by attorney-client privilege or fell under an exception because, prosecutors say, Allen threatened violence in connection with an upcoming custody hearing. Prosecutors and defense counsel agreed the recording exists and the court admitted it as State's Exhibit 1 for the hearing.

The recording contains a statement that prosecutors and the attorney who recorded the meeting described in the hearing as a threat. In the recording, Allen says, \"you bust these guys or there's dead bodies everywhere, bro.\" Charles Michael Ireland Jr., the lawyer who recorded and later provided the file to investigators, told the court he believed the statement met the professional-ethics exception that requires a lawyer to report a client's planned violent act. Ireland testified he called the State Bar ethics hotline and his outside counsel, who both advised him he had a mandatory duty to report under the disciplinary rule he cited.

Investigator Che Lopez of the sheriff's office testified she reviewed the recording and the civil docket showing a temporary-orders hearing set for April 23, 2025. Lopez said she believed the recording specified both a date and a courthouse context and that a warrant was later generated based on the statements and her investigation. The court admitted a docket slip showing the April 23 hearing as State's Exhibit 2 and the warrant as State's Exhibit 5.

Defense counsel argued the recorded conversation occurred during a confidential civil-law consultation and asserted attorney-client privilege. Counsel pressed that the recording was made without Allen's knowledge in the attorney's office and that Ireland's decision to record and then provide the file to law enforcement breached confidentiality. Ireland acknowledged recording Allen without telling him and said he had not previously recorded clients commonly, though he had recorded occasionally in 13 years of practice.

The judge heard testimony from Ireland and Investigator Lopez, accepted multiple exhibits for the limited purpose of the suppression hearing, and said she would rule after hearing argument. The court scheduled further argument the following morning, stating it would take up the motion to suppress first and then the motion to dismiss.

Why it matters: The hearing turns on the interplay between attorney-client confidentiality and the exception for communications made in furtherance of criminal conduct. The court's ruling could affect what evidence prosecutors may use in any criminal case that follows from the recording and may shape how attorneys assess reporting duties in similar civil-law settings.

No final ruling was issued at the hearing; the court said it would hear argument and issue a decision on the suppression and related dismissal motion at the next scheduled session.

Details and next steps: The court admitted the recording for the hearing and allowed testimony about its content and context. The judge ordered both sides to be prepared to argue the suppression and dismissal motions at the next session. The prosecutor produced the investigator and the attorney as witnesses; the defense called Allen to testify at the hearing. The court asked parties to be ready to proceed the next morning with argument.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","MON, JULY 28, 2025/JUDGE STEPHANIE BOYD/187TH DISTRICT COURT/AFTERNOON DOCKET","oneSentenceSummary","A judge in Bexar County on July 28 continued arguments on a defense motion to suppress a recorded conversation between defendant Ronald Lamar Allen and his former civil attorney, Charles Michael Ireland Jr., after testimony from the former attorney and a law-enforcement investigator.","taxTitle","Judge Stephanie Boyd 187th District, District Court Judges, Judicial, Texas","taxId",66298,"location","Texas","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6152273,"Man Pleads Guilty to State-Jail Felony; Judge Accepts 180-Day Sentence",253,3332000,3585000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5499132-a6e8b0ea6743a831ed104a1e8c6d0174&start=3332&end=3585","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5499132-a6e8b0ea6743a831ed104a1e8c6d0174/thumbnail_3332000.jpg","/articles/6152273/Texas/Man-Pleads-Guilty-to-State-Jail-Felony-Judge-Accepts-180-Day-Sentence","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6152273-dc0780d22e407ffd951f8840ffd01798/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159289&Signature=iI10PTZ3eYqGh0-Oe3vOdQs7hFWCb4KDskTex7PL~CbMjWMIKCm9LYLczmBqAtlEe-9EcseKhC433OaCfKMr4oEmSfvzo3fTneGE-bNweyYpWo5gClV4~YfTeE3QQLMlJZ20mzix0rGeNH6RoCmbPecMFFFd~BDHsrfs9gQI38DLg9U7Q~1xGNswlpGO2cy4kGyEXUE9zhZpu5J6aDSHDVQb0N~~Pzt4kQaQhoABiBQpiTaIeaMDRLuLMdtrMfimlI1hYbTrLbGrbf7kKMowaBv45hO~vaON6X5t2fpUMpoVQnl~eZy1v49z5yPkv9V88FR15Yg~s~3-GVILt1AMkA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Carlos White pleaded guilty to a state-jail felony charge of possession of a controlled substance in Bexar County court on July 28. The court accepted the plea and sentenced White to 180 days in a state jail facility under the terms of the plea agreement.

During the hearing, the judge reviewed plea admonishments with White and confirmed he understood the range of punishment for a state-jail felony (180 days to two years and up to a $10,000 fine). The defense explained White had explored alternatives, including specialty courts, but had not been accepted. The judge imposed the 180-day term as provided by the plea, gave credit for any time served, and advised White of the prohibition on owning firearms following a felony conviction. The court also covered the waiver of appellate rights under the plea bargain and accepted the state's exhibits that formed the factual basis for the plea.

Why it matters: The sentence resolves the pending indictment in this case and directs White toward the sanctions and services specified during the plea, including referral recommendations the court mentioned for post-release services.

The judge also encouraged White to seek continuing care and mental-health resources offered by community providers as part of efforts to reduce future contact with the criminal justice system.","Carlos White pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance (state jail felony) and the court accepted a plea calling for a 180-day state jail-term sentence, with the judge advising the defendant of the consequences and waiving appeal rights consistent with the plea.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6152278,"Judge Revokes Probation, Sentences Nicholas Gonzales to Five Years After Repeated Failures to Report",439,3813000,4252000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5499132-a6e8b0ea6743a831ed104a1e8c6d0174&start=3813&end=4252","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5499132-a6e8b0ea6743a831ed104a1e8c6d0174/thumbnail_3813000.jpg","/articles/6152278/Texas/Judge-Revokes-Probation-Sentences-Nicholas-Gonzales-to-Five-Years-After-Repeated-Failures-to-Report","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6152278-5d448f754b8cfef8f655bf702c2ccabe/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159289&Signature=A1YMvV1Inkd8QEH5ATJXLXxuiQHFmoWo0YXMh37rEn9-AcThTmfIN94monHEMFujH0mdxBSCkFesX~d9YSGI4PANuWSS9N5dl0~y5DuegzLo-Jzi4YwCYN~aydrEDPwmjNoTorycC55XMmBLvjVUS-tPAiqn3qhq2zYB509w3p2747MmAC7QsTtxH72gZNgMz4g7Ti1WClEmQ-RfVJPGCj6AYO2kYJ0PKuX-pXdOKsWLZg7KM16jzgD6EIqfRKL73LtLATNn7tf3mYM1Ol~V2QwxfB4ed-cueBchJfuecpZT0d1ycY3FDivT-b7AYKAQvJ68vR7cW~i7aAIvAgTbTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Bexar County judge revoked community supervision and sentenced Nicholas Paul Gonzales to five years in prison after finding that Gonzales repeatedly failed to report to his supervision officer.

Gonzales, who had been on community supervision since 2020 for harassment of a public servant, was charged in the court's motion with failing to report for the months of February, March and April 2025. When asked how he pled to the violation, he said, \"Not true,\" but the court found the violation proven and denied a negotiated agreement.

The state sought revocation and a five-year sentence. Defense counsel urged the court to keep Gonzales on supervision and continue treatment options, citing the effect of prior in‑custody treatment programs and the defendant's stated desire to get mental-health and housing support. Gonzales told the court he believed residential programs would help him and said he feared deterioration inside jail.

The judge reviewed Gonzales' supervision history, including multiple prior violations and efforts to refer him to mental-health evaluations and treatment. The court concluded probation had not produced the necessary compliance and revoked his supervision. The judge imposed a five-year prison term, ordered credit for time already served and credited inpatient treatment time where applicable. The court asked the clerks to confirm the precise credit calculation before Gonzales is moved to custody.

Why it matters: The case highlights the court's interest in balancing rehabilitative services and accountability for repeated probation violations, especially where mental-health issues have been raised. The judge said she carefully considered the defendant's history and the state's request but determined incarceration was the appropriate sanction after multiple failures to comply with reporting conditions.

The judge noted limited ability to assist someone who does not show up for treatment or supervision and ordered the sentence to run with credit for custody days and any allowable inpatient-treatment credit.","Nicholas Paul Gonzales pleaded true to violations of probation conditions for failure to report and the court revoked community supervision and sentenced him to five years in prison, after defense urged continued treatment placement but the judge found probation ineffective.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6152283,"San Antonio Man Sentenced on Attempted-Fraud Plea; Restitution, Probation, Parent Classes Ordered",367,659000,1026000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5499132-a6e8b0ea6743a831ed104a1e8c6d0174&start=659&end=1026","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5499132-a6e8b0ea6743a831ed104a1e8c6d0174/thumbnail_659000.jpg","/articles/6152283/Texas/San-Antonio-Man-Sentenced-on-Attempted-Fraud-Plea-Restitution-Probation-Parent-Classes-Ordered","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6152283-c9272a0f7dcd7852411ed327d42503b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159289&Signature=Hf1WQUMNn4s501k6n~mljbYWl42NF0yYzb3kU1CF0RSJb8JaHe91zk~wMJUVpJEbBGfQUWJfbi4WAoTUF5rA8fshF2vaQQi1Ejtq7~luf8BqPE1WPm1DTI33u0vRg52PFNupXQ1UVY25JbEdEakax0eOSd0hJNHJzb11qvSVAoPwSmlcDhYg1jPvCorwDPKmYcHiGSJ5hChZwVZsUhWWYLLRroSAADsuvfNNJ81fJRzM~rxgzja-KpliP0R~Hlh~j~BNwHvCfv3UZMB1nJSfjX-6Dq0AMQoeeAb472anhgqvlGr8LROwWZRJfiWMHVGd0UuNsYwxnJ6wGhN3EWdEJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Charles Garrett Smith appeared in Bexar County court July 28 and was sentenced following a guilty plea to attempted fraud, Class A.

According to court proceedings, Smith entered a plea that included restitution. The prosecutor confirmed $800 of a $1,600 restitution amount had been paid before sentencing; the remaining balance was set in court. The judge imposed suspended jail time, probation conditions, and other requirements.

Under the court's sentence, Smith was ordered to pay the outstanding restitution balance, to report monthly to supervision, to submit to random urine analyses, to provide proof of employment within 30 days, and to avoid employment as a home-health-care provider or work with minors. The judge ordered 100 hours of community-service restitution, with 50 hours to be waived upon completion of parenting classes and the remainder to be satisfied after an MRT course was completed. The court also ordered field visits and specified no contact with Saint Peter and Paul Catholic Church as part of the no-contact provisions.

The judge imposed 365 days in Bexar County Jail suspended for two years on the condition of probation, with the crediting of any time already served and other standard probation conditions. Smith told the court he worked as a restaurant manager and said he would pay $250 per month toward the remaining restitution balance. The judge advised him to stay on treatment and follow probation requirements; the court confirmed Smith had signed the trial court certification of defendant's rights to appeal and understood he waived appeal rights under the plea bargain.

Why it matters: The sentence combines restitution, community service and rehabilitative conditions intended to address Smith's conduct and family responsibilities while suspending a jail term under probation. The court verified partial restitution payment before entering sentence, as required by the plea arrangement.

The court excused the State after confirming payment and set follow-up reporting to probation. Smith was released from the courtroom after the judge reviewed conditions and advised him to remain in contact with probation staff.","Charles Garrett Smith pleaded guilty to attempted fraud and received a sentence that included restitution to a bank, suspended jail time, community service and parenting requirements. Court verified partial restitution payment and set monthly installment plan for the remaining balance.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judge to Continue Hearing on Motion to Suppress Attorney-Client Recording After Alleged Threats in San Antonio Custody Case

Man Pleads Guilty to State-Jail Felony; Judge Accepts 180-Day Sentence

Judge Revokes Probation, Sentences Nicholas Gonzales to Five Years After Repeated Failures to Report

San Antonio Man Sentenced on Attempted-Fraud Plea; Restitution, Probation, Parent Classes Ordered