[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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",[32,76,88,100],{"_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":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",5979946,"mediaKeyId","5775174-e2edabfa6f5baf7469723348c3195236","parentId",5775174,"title","Multiple plea bargains approved: deferred adjudications, restitution orders, and conditions imposed","audioSeconds",257,"startMs",3993000,"endMs",4250000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5775174-e2edabfa6f5baf7469723348c3195236&start=3993&end=4250","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5775174-e2edabfa6f5baf7469723348c3195236/thumbnail_3993000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5979946/Texas/Multiple-plea-bargains-approved-deferred-adjudications-restitution-orders-and-conditions-imposed","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5979946-324f125fcc8b23af195d2982c1715866/orig.mp4?Expires=1770513491&Signature=WuKy8BOKFLzhnjU3jBC2Jj2cNbrxa8NNFioixmKirfzdsCQdxTQHQ2JSJHPZxMWwqK603MnYASByAcOdqjAhA6T9LVly816X4rvRBNZX7QZe0ziN34DDCDXUfjIj-jHxXnjkYxBbN-asqxwNUR6MO19XA2l3FJh1NvB0D9oQ1z6Ei1~oJ4kWqfvAYq1qF0CPwXpQbJy47uVBxonkQmUvdUjiNAs-7m45xUGzOLcvsRE5AdFIR5gQRz5El2P75yRnDCo6bnu0WAUWzhPjDLPRNHgkFm3DZEDdklnefRcLb1u3lxS~lFR-H5xhkSFq1L4Q-wSo73GbFL7pzc4II8ygBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Judge Stephanie Boyd","date","2025-09-18T00:00:00Z","article","On docket the court accepted multiple plea agreements that deferred findings of guilt or imposed short custodial terms, and in several cases set conditions tied to restitution, education, and treatment. The orders varied case by case but shared common elements: reporting rules (Zoom or in person), random drug testing, field visits, community service tied to education, and referrals for substance-use or mental-health evaluations.

Examples on the docket included: Ezra Espinosa, who agreed to deferred adjudication with a $2,000 fine (to be probated), $5,000 restitution to a named victim, reporting requirements, and education-linked community-service waivers (the court ordered 160 hours of community service of which 100 hours would be waived on completion of his GED and the remaining 60 hours waived upon completion of trade-school certification or higher education). Espinosa paid $900 at the hearing and the court set the remaining balance and ordered monthly restitution payments to be arranged through the DA check section.

Another plea accepted for a second-degree possession case resulted in deferred adjudication with a thousand-dollar fine, TAP (treatment) and NIC evaluations, enrollment in felony drug court where appropriate, routine random UAs, and other reporting conditions. The court highlighted that deferred adjudication and probation require careful compliance and warned defendants that violations may result in revocation and prison exposure.

Why this matters: Plea agreements set the path for rehabilitation or supervision for many defendants. The court imposed education and treatment conditions tied to reduced community-service burdens, used probation reporting requirements to monitor compliance, and emphasized the consequences of noncompliance.

Court staff instructed defendants where to take restitution payments and emphasized communication with probation about payment plans and testing schedules. The court repeatedly reminded defendants that deferred adjudication carries significant long-term consequences if violated, including the potential for imprisonment and collateral effects such as restrictions on weapon possession and—if not a U.S. citizen—immigration consequences.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","THURS., SEPT 18, 2025/JUDGE STEPHANIE BOYD/187TH DISTRICT COURT/MORNING DOCKET","oneSentenceSummary","The court accepted several plea bargains resulting in deferred adjudication, restitution orders and specific supervision conditions including GED requirements, community service waivers, reporting rules, and referrals to drug court or TAP evaluations.","taxTitle","Judge Stephanie Boyd 187th District, District Court Judges, Judicial, Texas","taxId",66298,"location","Texas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5979951,"Court resolves revocation motions; one defendant given treatment plan, another sentenced to state jail",1480,3540000,5020000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5775174-e2edabfa6f5baf7469723348c3195236&start=3540&end=5020","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5775174-e2edabfa6f5baf7469723348c3195236/thumbnail_3540000.jpg","/articles/5979951/Texas/Court-resolves-revocation-motions-one-defendant-given-treatment-plan-another-sentenced-to-state-jail","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5979951-0859dc140b0a7530ec61de8b66eb50bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1770513491&Signature=Dl5uo4oKLy6guXGmuu~GHCeFvYP7rV7cElJXWo46C5JDQsjfsfQ-s9B~hehUmz7r7IjPKyhJP8XvR6O1rgsM2nKQKz1kx9eW2YQmiXGkPni4Vbt0yZ-sMNGUK5YQB1hH0kf4qOjV~~qShSPugVXBgUuBgkeTQ6hlRMG8QtDICDWRJuhAcTFQtGB-tDB98todk6WcnJzyC4~GXAK1DYxznX~rUL2HdMRs-8jmxb6nJk5-kO85CgWbC2dFVUSDSb0Idx3il1bSm33EK6pu4lPEU~kv4Ufn7Q-n5Amre36IBHDvdVq3dMnU9CWjWmV~-B-TZ2lFg0lBPz4JtgVeMXINGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The court addressed several motions to revoke community supervision during the docket call and issued divergent outcomes depending on the violations and agreed resolutions.

In one matter, Kenneth Sangoon Kim pleaded true to a violation for failing to submit to drug testing. Kim admitted noncompliance and told the court he had struggled with substance use; the state and the probation officer recommended noncustodial sanctions. Judge Angelini found the violation true and—after conferring with counsel—accepted an agreement that denied the motion to revoke in exchange for intensive treatment conditions: enrollment in an intensive outpatient program (IOP), use of the IVR hotline with testing within 24 hours of notice, sober-support meetings, and testing requirements tailored to supervision needs.

In a separate revocation, the court found multiple violations proved for Ricardo Gutierrez—failure to register for a theft program, missed testing, and admitted use of a controlled substance. Gutierrez pled true to the violations. The state recommended revocation and a nine-month state-jail sentence; the court followed that recommendation and sentenced him to nine months in the state-jail facility, with credit for any time served. Defense requested credit for time served and noted community-service and parenting classes completed; the court denied continued community supervision and imposed the term.

Why this matters: Motions to revoke can result either in a chance at treatment and supervision conditions or in incarceration. The court’s decisions illustrate how the judge weighs prior compliance, the nature of violations, and available treatment options when resolving supervision violations.

Courtroom exchanges reflected the judge’s focus on treatment where compliance was plausible and on public-safety and rehabilitative needs where violations showed persistent noncompliance. Both matters remain on the court record for supervision monitoring and for the record of any credit for time served.","On the docket judge adjudicated multiple motions to revoke community supervision: Kenneth Sangoon Kim pleaded true and received a treatment-oriented sanction; Ricardo Gutierrez pleaded true and was sentenced to nine months in a state-jail facility.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5979956,"Judge refers defendant with wound and missed contacts to Center for Healthcare Services and orders attorney help",122,1580000,1702000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5775174-e2edabfa6f5baf7469723348c3195236&start=1580&end=1702","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5775174-e2edabfa6f5baf7469723348c3195236/thumbnail_1580000.jpg","/articles/5979956/Texas/Judge-refers-defendant-with-wound-and-missed-contacts-to-Center-for-Healthcare-Services-and-orders-attorney-help","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5979956-8eec0eba1e9d7f89efe3d0a201ad8281/orig.mp4?Expires=1770513491&Signature=Mu~pHUEbAxGKGfhNsIOzBL8I7~DA1~vD00HX7E6i2jork2ZQ0BUi8HWQ8hEwe~Op00QaBleugywY31LoC89XqkIw2qgSMOg5LRs6Q-LdgKSvE5fk4Ffqv6b53Zc8gkgmj6hW4rQwWHhEaRaUZiu0SCaW4eNfQSuLS8Njp0kbL--3mKXvoljPD979neyMhSKaUI0dyJ-Vyz8iqFGr-ZOGK8lLm~-MKnin4o-GIyvb79Se589EnwqP~oEbuvwnp8nw1PmYHMuSMl9ppm3AngCEF0oEbKZ91VjzZJsleGFvvwB4i8pe5gXupSjf~n0j8opdJtX2~ciS2hZrC~RtdEGRgg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Presiding Judge Angelini ordered a referral to Center for Healthcare Services for a defendant who had been reported missing and returned with an infected wound, and directed the court to arrange for new counsel to meet with him. The order comes after family members and counsel told the court the defendant recently had a missing-persons report filed and that caseworkers had closed his prior case with the community behavioral-health provider.

The judge said she would \"do a referral for you for Center for Healthcare Services\" and added that she would attempt to get an attorney to come down to meet the defendant that day or the following day. The court set a 30-day reset and told the defendant to remain in the courtroom while the court tried to arrange an in-person meeting with an appointed attorney and outreach from the Center for Healthcare Services.

Why this matters: Counsel and family reported the defendant received medical treatment after the wound worsened while he was missing for about 10 days, and that the community provider had closed his case. The court’s referral is aimed at restoring community behavioral-health services, ensuring medical follow-up, and coordinating representation for the defendant while his criminal matter proceeds.

The court directed probation and court staff to provide contact information and to help coordinate the Center for Healthcare Services outreach and an attorney visit. The defendant was told to remain available for a possible same-day or next-day attorney visit and to provide contact numbers to staff. The judge emphasized the importance of communication with probation and of returning for the scheduled October reset date.","After a defendant went missing and returned with a worsening wound, the judge ordered a referral to Center for Healthcare Services, arranged for an attorney to meet the defendant, and scheduled a 30-day reset to monitor progress.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5979959,"Judge Angelini scolds prosecutors over missing discovery, sets uniform plea and offer deadlines",120,2052000,2172000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5775174-e2edabfa6f5baf7469723348c3195236&start=2052&end=2172","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5775174-e2edabfa6f5baf7469723348c3195236/thumbnail_2052000.jpg","/articles/5979959/Texas/Judge-Angelini-scolds-prosecutors-over-missing-discovery-sets-uniform-plea-and-offer-deadlines","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5979959-d11552c2067a2ad5f42f92e4ea5c71b3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770513491&Signature=EE8RDEjzG5H0bPvTQUYLLrhUB009Cdwnz9whN1ys9jw85o6DWoqfiiNQi7pLjKA~Oo73v4NPbkGf3BmKE5w3gtcMxrNdtWOKrdIWTZd6c79WLycToq~GtOx5kDTzKLHrktKQ8zK~Eddh0kX81UPQd5Yu0fsD4WDQI9Asyiv0-dJlWueGbF~HfGg1U2HMqht~l3AS8rL-bj7h3hPTR2Cevm6ysFL-ScDcAoe~fJtxbCZZ8JTqDAN~fkDGNczt4TdORcbPI0VobOPjRR87rQ2tZ1x9yi-eyroyOTKGBwSkBbe99wUcdDbxjNLqCImQIDhebBvujzCFE-EGRblLXoXarg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Presiding Judge Angelini told prosecutors on the courthouse docket that she will no longer accept indictments without the underlying discovery and set firm plea and offer deadlines in several cases, after several defense attorneys said evidence from law enforcement had not been produced. The admonition came during routine docket calls when multiple defense lawyers said they lacked key materials needed to evaluate offers or prepare motions.

The judge said she did not understand why “cases are being indicted and evidence is not in hand,” and ordered multiple 30- to 45-day resets with specific dates for the state to tender plea offers and for defense to be ready to proceed. The court directed the state to produce outstanding discovery or face motions from the defense, and warned that the court would consider traditional remedies if materials were not provided on time.

Why this matters: Defense counsel said recurring discovery delays have forced repeated plea-deadline extensions and have kept defendants in limbo. Judge Angelini said timely disclosure is essential both to defendants’ rights and to the efficient administration of justice.

At the hearing the court set concrete dates in several cases: a 45-day reset and an offer deadline in a case where counsel told the court discovery had only recently been delivered on USB (case referenced at docket time), a 30-day deadline in another matter where the state told the court it expected additional materials, and multiple plea-deadline recalls in late October and November where discovery remained outstanding. The court told the state to be prepared to tender offers on the announced dates and said any remaining discovery not produced by then would be the subject of defensive motions.

The court also clarified that certain discovery problems would be handled by motion practice if not resolved: if the defense lacks access to specific items, the court said it will entertain motions to compel or other relief at the next setting. The judge admonished all parties to communicate discovery issues to the clerk’s office in advance, and to notify the court through the assigned court coordinator if a motion to resolve an outstanding disclosure is needed.

Court staff and lawyers who spoke during the docket included the court coordinator who entered reset dates and the state’s prosecutors who acknowledged outstanding items and the need to collect evidence from law enforcement and upload it to the defense. The court used specific case examples during its remarks to illustrate the recurring pattern and to explain that the court expects remedial action on the dates it set.

The court recessed the calendar at noon for a scheduled jury trial and reiterated that if matters were not taken up that day they would be reset to the announced dates. The judge repeatedly instructed prosecutors and defense counsel to verify disclosure on the record before the next plea deadline.","Presiding Judge Angelini told prosecutors she expects discovery in hand and set firm plea/offer deadlines across multiple cases after repeated delays by law enforcement and the district attorney's office.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Multiple plea bargains approved: deferred adjudications, restitution orders, and conditions imposed

Court resolves revocation motions; one defendant given treatment plan, another sentenced to state jail

Judge refers defendant with wound and missed contacts to Center for Healthcare Services and orders attorney help

Judge Angelini scolds prosecutors over missing discovery, sets uniform plea and offer deadlines