Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Revocations Sentencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court resolves revocation motions; one defendant given treatment plan, another sentenced to state jail
Summary
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.
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.
