[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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],{"_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",6146277,"mediaKeyId","5527682-d58903f60eeeddb6cde8c32d4c2df05d","parentId",5527682,"title","Kaylee Vater Pleads Guilty to State‑Jail Felony for Fraudulent Use of ID; Court Imposes One‑Year State Jail Term","audioSeconds",559,"startMs",4147000,"endMs",4706000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5527682-d58903f60eeeddb6cde8c32d4c2df05d&start=4147&end=4706","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5527682-d58903f60eeeddb6cde8c32d4c2df05d/thumbnail_4147000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6146277/Texas/Kaylee-Vater-Pleads-Guilty-to-StateJail-Felony-for-Fraudulent-Use-of-ID-Court-Imposes-OneYear-State-Jail-Term","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146277-b0f2b01f29c1a83ef1d67621258ce285/orig.mp4?Expires=1773345450&Signature=kiBOyZIMiZb6170wmB1yXjGITl56PCPFJTAVWhZZpqseHXKEU92tU33QImYlkNmPcpOq4ZNikNf86cW5aXm7uvvULgMCI7mRegWmzF0jX2-7cS9Cg2KzfZTmPeJRRL8aDlsL1ihUO451fT2ir5eBWmdBJVMnRhyL6m9NY0yh00DKz5lCdEodViXrZ1sdFNXpvjbdySGKIn-UnL53~vUN58OcmcThdxaPEKCgu~FApHjWayVObjhJXxrAbSNn~jR3uyXFr4yBtmh9SXKdUh08SzjP6tsG67LKBzFSemBUw0E2ANsiHZF3D3BADL-oZwoNneOz6a8VIitAnGi5oyS3Ig__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-08-04T21:33:06Z","article","The court accepted a plea from the defendant identified as Kaylee Vater to a state‑jail felony count of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information and sentenced her to one year in a state jail facility and a $2,000 fine. The judge advised the defendant of rights and consequences, found the plea knowing and voluntary and said the sentence followed the plea agreement.

Why this matters: A state‑jail felony conviction carries custodial consequences, fines and collateral restrictions; the court also recommended therapeutic treatment and imposed a no‑contact recommendation the state requested.

During the hearing the court reviewed admonishments and the indictment with the defendant and confirmed a waiver of jury trial. The plea stated punishment would be assessed at one year in the state jail facility with a $2,000 fine. The court accepted stipulated testimony and exhibits presented by the state in lieu of live testimony and, after review, \"find[ ] sufficient evidence to find you guilty,\" the judge said. The court then proceeded to sentencing and ordered placement in the state jail for one year with credit for any time served and a $2,000 fine.

The court also recorded the state's recommendation that the defendant have no contact with an individual identified in the record as Janiyah Krista Ortega (state counsel made that request on the record), and it recommended a therapeutic community placement. The judge advised the defendant that because this was a felony conviction she would be barred from owning or possessing weapons and that waiver of appeal language in the plea meant the defendant had limited appellate rights.

On the record, the defendant acknowledged personal circumstances including prior substance use and parenting concerns; the court stressed that the ordered placement and conditions were intended to increase the defendant's chances of success on release and offered assistance locating transitional housing.

Procedure and next steps: The record shows the court accepted the plea, entered a conviction, and imposed sentence. The defendant was advised of appeal limitations and release/placement assistance if needed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","MON, AUG 4, 2025/JUDGE STEPHANIE BOYD/187TH DIST CT/AFTER DOC & JURY: STATE VS CEPEDES","oneSentenceSummary","A defendant identified in court as Kaylee Vater waived jury trial, entered a plea to fraudulent use/possession of identifying information (state-jail felony) and was sentenced to one year in a state jail facility with a $2,000 fine and a recommendation for a therapeutic community placement.","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},6146282,"Judge Suspends 10-Year Prison Term for Michael Guadalupe Valero, Orders Inpatient Treatment or Felony Drug Court Referral",347,3351000,3698000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5527682-d58903f60eeeddb6cde8c32d4c2df05d&start=3351&end=3698","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5527682-d58903f60eeeddb6cde8c32d4c2df05d/thumbnail_3351000.jpg","/articles/6146282/Texas/Judge-Suspends-10-Year-Prison-Term-for-Michael-Guadalupe-Valero-Orders-Inpatient-Treatment-or-Felony-Drug-Court-Referral","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146282-23c2be065cc03ded90b4f5f0dafeb55a/orig.mp4?Expires=1773345450&Signature=PD7lTrvawzgr58LJRwuue8og2y5k3t5o1IoPiN9ob1CE3s~HrZD3ThMTu6ssKSqg4uSELwa9cq1zHfVE8D7dMepVTPg7-zcor~hlgx~ipJA4vfillo2NyAdFc5IOVboCRST52MHgwB1OIvbY0aRG-R6zpzMYwoj3wK4cV7mIxO2v5OichsynDHLp5NCrhRY0LP~MgLoKrYWytfkxPSXKeWriG1HqzGcqBqpGvuoqNSpsSx0rietvy3yElWfLuYmwyLNDhRwr0vDkNFQxp3w8zjTP1nHoEDb2fQrX1Ml~Brty76O0pyM482lOY51JvBYWaFl8dykiTwUMU4Rznx4njg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The court found Michael Guadalupe Valero guilty and sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment suspended and placed him on probation for 10 years, imposing treatment and supervision conditions including referral to felony drug court or inpatient treatment. Judge announced, \"The court is gonna find you guilty. The court is gonna sentence you to 10 years in the prison, suspended and probated for 10 years, regular reporting by Zoom or in person, regular random UAs,\" and imposed a $2,000 fine.

Why this matters: The sentence combines long-term supervision with mandated treatment and restrictions intended to reduce the risk of reoffending. The court specifically emphasized treatment placement as a condition of probation.

At a plea/sentencing hearing defense counsel Lorraine Ephren informed the court that Valero had applied for probation. The court recited that the plea agreement provided for a 10-year assessed sentence with the state's recommendation for community supervision and discussed treatment options on the record. The court observed evidence from a presentencing interview and the defendant's self-reporting of daily methamphetamine and marijuana use leading up to his arrest and stated, \"I just don't think that outpatient treatment at this time would be appropriate for him...he needs inpatient treatment.\"

The court set specific conditions: 200 hours of community service or restitution (to be deemed satisfied upon completion of recommended parenting classes), field visits once per month, proof of employment within 45 days of release, a prohibition on employment as a home health care provider or work with minors, and no contact with specified persons (not further identified on the record). The judge ordered a referral to felony drug court; if felony drug court would not accept Valero, the court directed that he remain in custody until a safety/inpatient placement could be arranged.

The court also instructed that the defendant would forfeit certain rights consistent with a felony conviction, including a prohibition on owning or possessing weapons. The judge advised Valero to work with probation and return to court if problems arose.

What this means procedurally: Valero will remain in custody until placement is secured either by felony drug court transfer or by an inpatient treatment assignment; probation conditions and monitoring were set to begin on release.

Clarifying details recorded in court: the court referenced that Valero had been using methamphetamine daily up to the date of arrest; the assessed prison term was 10 years with suspension and probation for 10 years; a $2,000 fine was ordered and the court specified community service and parenting-class conditions.","Michael Guadalupe Valero was found guilty and sentenced to a 10-year term suspended and probated for 10 years with mandatory treatment conditions and other reporting requirements; the court directed consideration of felony drug court or inpatient treatment.",{"_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},6146286,"Judge Allows Zoom Testimony, Denies Directed Verdict and Rejects 'Knife' Definition in State v. Angel Miguel Cepeda",8678,248000,8926000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5527682-d58903f60eeeddb6cde8c32d4c2df05d&start=248&end=8926","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5527682-d58903f60eeeddb6cde8c32d4c2df05d/thumbnail_248000.jpg","/articles/6146286/Texas/Judge-Allows-Zoom-Testimony-Denies-Directed-Verdict-and-Rejects-Knife-Definition-in-State-v-Angel-Miguel-Cepeda","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146286-9e685f8ffb8688cb43a7fc5d6dbf1ad0/orig.mp4?Expires=1773345450&Signature=mXCuR~V3dOU4J~6UKHZNfrjO5BcnOFcPXKZKb4UZIu2rttbOHk2jhzzrjp5KcdeucyCQ9xA3oHdgpspoD3Bo1TrxEzWrrA~s7L9SxQYwB4aXi2G24KDGXWrLc7Sa6V4nJPW~1iN6Di9C6r-ksD0bC2-yJ7jW9gcibR2tQd-X3kAW~rfm3gstb9RuHyAb99tZh7X~BopOBxr-VeKyz1v4klLlSJYeNXw0NlE-i8mce~XQnllIPhcB73bHUrWaXiVGWcIImtZCGSrujvJY2JbcQlt4I00YGeE7IfsFLy7nVD62ORpnYDiqHiPM9OCS0sGVB~DnWrc7D1F6Wo0wBXSZfw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The court in State of Texas v. Angel Miguel Cepeda allowed a barbershop owner to testify remotely by Zoom, denied the defense's motion for a directed verdict on the weapon element and announced it would not include a statutory definition of \"knife\" in the jury instructions after defense objection. Judge presiding over the trial said, \"The court is gonna allow him to testify by Zoom.\" The action came during ongoing testimony and pre-charge argument on whether the state had proved the weapon element of the indictment.

Why this matters: The question whether the object used meets the statutory or common-law definition of a knife bears directly on a charged offense that alleges use of a blade. Jury instructions about legal definitions could affect the elements the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt.

During a bench ruling before the jury returned, John Wright Meyer, defense counsel, moved for a directed verdict arguing the state had not proven the weapon element, saying the complainant described \"a razor blade\" while the indictment referred to a \"knife and or scissors.\" Prosecutor James responded that, \"we do believe that we met that element\" and said witness testimony would describe the blade and how it was affixed. The judge denied the defense motion.

The trial record includes testimony from Officer Alejandro Mata, a patrolman with the San Antonio Police Department, who said he responded to an assault-in-progress call at a shopping-center address on or about 05/04/2025. Mata testified he \"walked the parking lot\" looking for a victim or assailant, did not enter the businesses and recalled no observations that raised suspicion while he was present. Mata estimated he and responding officers were on scene for about five to 10 minutes and described the parking area as \"decent sized\" and the businesses as close together, making it \"theoretically possible to notice something pretty quickly.\" Mata testified he did not see or hear anything inside the restaurant at the time he was in the lot.

Magdiel Hernandez, who identified himself as the owner of Latin Flow No. 2 barbershop on Evers Road, testified for the defense about the layout and security of the shop. Hernandez said the storefront used a manual interior lock and a key from the outside, required a push or pull in addition to turning the lock, and that the facility had LED lighting inside and outside that provided good visibility.

Late in the day's proceedings, counsel and the court debated jury-charge language. The state sought inclusion of statutory and case-law definitions, including a definition of \"knife,\" to match the complainant's description. After defense objection, the judge said the court would \"not gonna allow the definition of knife in the charge based upon defense objection.\" The court told lawyers it would circulate two versions of the proposed charge — one with the definition and one without — and said it would reconsider if new authority was provided.

The court set closing arguments and instruction review for the next day: the court told the jurors to return at 9 a.m., and the court allowed 20 minutes per side for closing argument.

The trial record shows the court also permitted a Zoom witness and instructed counsel to make sure the remote participant could be heard and use the courtroom microphone for the record. The jury will receive the final charge the judge circulates before deliberations begin.

What's next: Closings are scheduled for 9 a.m. the following day; the jury will receive the court's charge at that time and hear closing arguments.","At a criminal trial over an alleged assault, the court allowed a barber-shop owner to testify by Zoom, denied the defense's motion for a directed verdict on the weapon element and declined to include a statutory definition of \"knife\" in the jury charge after objections.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Kaylee Vater Pleads Guilty to State‑Jail Felony for Fraudulent Use of ID; Court Imposes One‑Year State Jail Term

Judge Suspends 10-Year Prison Term for Michael Guadalupe Valero, Orders Inpatient Treatment or Felony Drug Court Referral

Judge Allows Zoom Testimony, Denies Directed Verdict and Rejects 'Knife' Definition in State v. Angel Miguel Cepeda