[{"_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",6140061,"mediaKeyId","5580246-2a63b7cf8e8a673d0417dc2aa4c2d017","parentId",5580246,"title","Judge finds probation violations true for James Lofton; sentencing reset and updated PSI ordered","audioSeconds",245,"startMs",5622000,"endMs",5867000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5580246-2a63b7cf8e8a673d0417dc2aa4c2d017&start=5622&end=5867","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5580246-2a63b7cf8e8a673d0417dc2aa4c2d017/thumbnail_5622000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6140061/Texas/Judge-finds-probation-violations-true-for-James-Lofton-sentencing-reset-and-updated-PSI-ordered","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6140061-765be0a48eb0f9ac9f266b77fdd88cd2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158840&Signature=hcjd32wz235AjQYLu1gNZsXuEgIQBwrn9qt2GBceoqCt3hDSgtXxfsBMAUXYUbEuV1fE7chjB14KkiD4tZGx9ZjdhcymXTtSouCKNbAloRQkFt~6JZ06skpfHAvzIPzkdRki612J88eceI64IrLvMnLih5wBwR193AG7aDSM3qbnKuMFkm52QjmmZJT7-LtgrbACBdI1dkFrRkMXDjGPfNA-Ie48k-kYKUl4gcwzLCSuMOKEa9AaawXl~f33-8EVzUVqpK18txhVBX4PtASHAFkTpvm2Udh7MmcaUkE46Y~h1BL5JbF7K4sK8TRzOzSYip85PS7ab~toqnMAeoQYqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-08-12T04:09:27Z","article","In a motion to revoke probation hearing the presiding judge found the allegations against James Lofton true, revoked probation and reset the matter for sentencing after ordering an updated pre-sentence investigation (PSI).
Lofton admitted the allegations during the hearing; when asked, he answered “True” to the count alleging driving while intoxicated on Dec. 15, 2023. The court identified a second violation as failure to pay court-assessed fees, noting the arrearage at $5,946 as of Dec. 20, 2023, and Lofton admitted that as true as well.
The judge stated, “I’m going to find that you entered those pleas true of true freely and voluntarily, find sufficient evidence to revoke your probation, but I’m going to reset your case for sentencing and have the probation department do an updated pre sentence report.” The court directed defense counsel and probation to pursue an updated PSI and scheduled a follow-up sentencing setting after the misdemeanor matter down the hall was resolved.
Why it matters: A revocation finding can lead to incarceration or other court-imposed sanctions. The judge ordered an updated PSI to give the court more information on what sanction would be appropriate at sentencing, and noted the possibility of intermediate sanctions such as a short jail term or ISF (inmate substance facility) participation depending on the updated report and coordination with misdemeanor court outcomes.
The court noted practical scheduling: the judge arranged the next hearing for a Tuesday in late August to accommodate the defendant’s anticipated custody status and to allow probation to complete the update. The judge also instructed Lofton to stay in touch with his probation officer and defense counsel.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Judge Raquel West's Personal Meeting Room","oneSentenceSummary","The court found two probation violations true in a revocation hearing for James Lofton — a driving-while-intoxicated allegation and unpaid court fees — and reset the matter for sentencing, ordering an updated pre-sentence investigation report.","taxTitle","252nd District Court, District Court Judges, Judicial, Texas","taxId",66306,"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},6140064,"Multiple defendants plead guilty to evading arrest; deferred probation and fines specified in plea agreements",2387,5665000,8052000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5580246-2a63b7cf8e8a673d0417dc2aa4c2d017&start=5665&end=8052","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5580246-2a63b7cf8e8a673d0417dc2aa4c2d017/thumbnail_5665000.jpg","/articles/6140064/Texas/Multiple-defendants-plead-guilty-to-evading-arrest-deferred-probation-and-fines-specified-in-plea-agreements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6140064-6959dd482a20a72faacdc6f3f58a368c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158840&Signature=JuCWrfTP-y-D9lqftv0K-GTjNK9S2DtpZo~VaQvuQtYAxNC49W3dsxYOm8M09FtmHyBqjEvgoQepREf1idNqKIsM2dNkDneOGmiXcbSpl2GXOVMfuFWZBoRwW1HLwL0RR4kbR7OE290YGkEDAIllgtHcQvjNRsMr1cY7GpBoN63R7wTIb5G8Tb9mwllS3aaXXtIsKF1pOr0zeOSyN~gki3RNl9ie3f0gZ~2hsmIk~3dG75WZPOlT5hEvp90DDJrS--sUFv~rZ7b6TqThSR3URzWj1vrzOPkG99xQmkGVKeVHSKVywiuLdcuW9EivatHqwrcxzkFe6EHZaVpiJKIGfQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Three defendants in separate cases entered guilty pleas or reached plea agreements for evading arrest or detention with the use of a vehicle; the court accepted pleas, described the plea terms and in some matters reset for pre-sentence reports.
Antonio Sanchez pleaded guilty to a third-degree felony charge of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle (cause number 25DCCR0790). The court described the agreement on the record as a five-year deferred probation term with a $500 fine; the judge found the plea knowingly made and reset the case so probation could prepare a pre-sentence report before sentencing.
Seondre Stevens pleaded guilty to a third-degree felony count of evading arrest or detention with the use of a vehicle (cause number 24DCCR2310). The judge said the agreement reflected a three-year deferred probation term and a $500 fine; the court accepted the plea and reset the matter for a pre-sentence report and later sentencing.
Edwin (David) Lopez entered a guilty plea after the state amended an indictment to a class A misdemeanor of evading arrest or detention (cause number 24DCCR1908). The judge followed an agreement that deferred adjudication and placed Lopez on two years’ probation with a $500 fine, explaining that successful completion would allow dismissal at the end of the probation term.
The court explicitly warned defendants about immigration consequences when applicable: the judge asked each defendant, “Do you understand if you’re not a U.S. citizen that a plea of guilty or no contest may result in your deportation, exclusion from admission to the country, or denial of naturalization under federal law?”
Several of these matters required probation reports or additional processing: Sanchez and Stevens had their pleas accepted but were sent back for pre-sentence reports; Lopez was deferred adjudication and placed on probation immediately under the agreement reflected on the record.
The decisions were entered on the record and defendants were told to stay in touch with counsel and probation as directed by the court.","At the Jefferson County docket several defendants pleaded guilty to evading arrest or detention with a vehicle; plea agreements called for deferred probation terms and $500 fines, with some cases reset for pre-sentence reports and sentencing.",{"_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},6140069,"Judge orders drug-patch monitoring, restricts driving and directs treatment visits for defendants who test positive",53,5378000,5431000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5580246-2a63b7cf8e8a673d0417dc2aa4c2d017&start=5378&end=5431","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5580246-2a63b7cf8e8a673d0417dc2aa4c2d017/thumbnail_5378000.jpg","/articles/6140069/Texas/Judge-orders-drug-patch-monitoring-restricts-driving-and-directs-treatment-visits-for-defendants-who-test-positive","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6140069-34281174f0fc7f37160673882ea19ed2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158840&Signature=FyRMCEeMW~kN6~L0l4XmTXwhcpYZkkTHWxIQedM5t7fNh2WZbkOHK5qkJaCzXcJZEblJaBHm46bFcfNLNb~pq5C8Q528gjFA0FY9RYFcAr07cYkJCdvGgkGaJfJycd0he0r8Si~l3BTbjWCU0ot83yhGyD32Sh1yjBb8OhWbdJ16GrnvWlEWxuALsrD5iN8iGWQHn1m7lsDjQ~KQoC7l5vEMeZss0FwT-w9VbpWuk4g7Wa1MVH3-UAnm3JgTchDpBx~15B6tcCN-wXg~MBDI0qLX5fIzfmYOUdodOmx88wiB2OAApAGMZUJYLzRiBx73uOXqGxWtLzKI87fMpoOrjg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The presiding judge ordered immediate treatment-related bond conditions for defendants who tested positive on drug screenings, including a requirement to obtain a monitored drug patch within 24 hours and follow a treatment plan.
The judge told Precious Eaglin, charged with assault on a peace officer and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, “You are going to have to get a drug patch. You have 24 hours to get that. ... You have to get it changed every 2 weeks.” The judge also ordered that Eaglin not drive while she remains positive on testing.
Why it matters: The court used bond conditions to require monitored treatment and to limit driving privileges pending negative tests — an immediate change to pretrial conditions that affects defendants’ mobility and treatment obligations.
At the hearing the judge explained the expectations for treatment compliance and testing: “It’s obviously gonna test positive this first time, but it needs to test negative after that. Do you understand?” The judge directed the defendant to visit with court-recommended resources and to “do whatever you need to do” to follow the plan, specifically naming a local provider referenced in court as Spindle Top as a place defendants could obtain the patch and related services.
The court also discussed patch testing results with counsel in other matters. In one case the judge noted a defendant, Brian Mitchell, had a hair-follicle test that tested negative and that the defendant had tested negative on a patch that day; the judge reiterated that defendants must continue to change patches on schedule and attend appointments.
The court made these conditions part of bond compliance; failure to follow the testing and treatment plan could prompt the court to reexamine bond or other conditions at a future hearing.
The orders were narrowly applied to the defendants who tested positive or whose testing protocols were under review; the judge directed them to meet with court staff and with defense counsel to make specific plans before leaving the courthouse.","A Jefferson County judge ordered at least one defendant to obtain a drug-monitoring patch within 24 hours, barred her from driving while she tests positive, and instructed defendants to follow treatment plans and contact a local provider named in court.",{"_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},6140075,"Judge orders defendants to consult three lawyers within 30 days; multiple cases reset",441,2769000,3210000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5580246-2a63b7cf8e8a673d0417dc2aa4c2d017&start=2769&end=3210","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5580246-2a63b7cf8e8a673d0417dc2aa4c2d017/thumbnail_2769000.jpg","/articles/6140075/Texas/Judge-orders-defendants-to-consult-three-lawyers-within-30-days-multiple-cases-reset","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6140075-9adf914af7232160f2e1d8b032ff9447/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158840&Signature=oYdbCM1m1NKC5G2jaaNpY5bJMM-ax7uOn-gk7yHsEZVKuqSWwy1HesT3snJx4DQ4CAxd~b5QL1dLartA-CHOs65FC2fwm84IH14yQGHwRXItSq2XhetUPjplm-Ep4FJCQqunHRkVc2LNBcUeZMhg2rNEQH3TptU1uHq5Xs5iFBVccQ5dWCNR1xC5QtJuTTAezJKOvKbouEdYXa3iQbRxyPHa-c~K4AMoFFk22NbbvoTsCUCkFiCxZLBHuibF82cqLUDfcOCdcFSkOVLHYP-ETpTjyoT9gL32D39wxRkLUh5HZUTlZ-vLR0Nr63Bwmfp83vqXFSH9K66um-NWkhF5fg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The presiding judge at Jefferson County Criminal Court reset dozens of initial appearances and ordered defendants who had posted bond to try to hire private lawyers within 30 days.
The order was issued across several cases during the arraignment and status docket, with the judge telling multiple defendants, “If you cannot hire someone before the next court date, then I’m ordering you to visit with at least 3 lawyers.”
Why it matters: The court repeatedly warned that failing to follow the order could result in raised bond and return to custody, a procedural consequence that affected defendants in several matters heard that morning.
At the hearing the judge explained the process to defendants who had made bond, saying, “When you’re in custody, we automatically give you an attorney. But once you make bond, I expect you to at least try to hire your own. So I’m gonna reset your case about 30 days to give you some time to do that.” The judge instructed defendants to bring the reset notice to any lawyer they consult and to bring back the names of the lawyers they spoke with at the next court date.
Multiple defendants were handled under this instruction. Christopher Morrell, whose case was identified as cause number 25DCCR0466 and who is charged with continuous violence against a family member, was told the reset and the consultation requirement after telling the court he had made bond. Eriberto Chavez (cause 25DCCR0559), charged with deadly conduct for discharging a firearm, received the same directive. Veronica Randall and others whose matters were before the court were similarly instructed to attempt to hire counsel and return with the names of attorneys they consulted.
Court staff and defense counsel repeatedly reminded defendants that “no contact” bond conditions remain in effect while bond is active; the judge said those conditions cover in-person contact and “communication in any way.” The judge warned that failure to follow court orders could lead to an increased bond and confinement.
The resets were procedural: the judge set new dates about 30 days out to allow time for defendants to meet with counsel. The judge made clear these were not automatic attorney appointments for bonded defendants and that the consultations were required to show effort to secure representation before the next setting.
The docket included many other routine procedural orders — interpreter requests, discovery follow-ups and scheduling — but the consistent instruction to attempt to hire counsel and to report back was the recurring procedural direction that carried across multiple matters.","At a Jefferson County criminal docket session the presiding judge reset numerous initial appearances about 30 days and ordered defendants who made bond to attempt to hire counsel, directing each to consult at least three lawyers and report back at the next date.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judge finds probation violations true for James Lofton; sentencing reset and updated PSI ordered

Multiple defendants plead guilty to evading arrest; deferred probation and fines specified in plea agreements

Judge orders drug-patch monitoring, restricts driving and directs treatment visits for defendants who test positive

Judge orders defendants to consult three lawyers within 30 days; multiple cases reset