Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Court Continuance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Judge grants continuance in State v. Willie James Cunningham; trial reset for Sept. 9

5775222 · August 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A judge granted the state's motion for a continuance in the case of Willie James Cunningham after the defendant's family reported a preplanned out-of-state vacation; the trial was rescheduled for Sept. 9 and related calendar items were set.

A judge granted the state's motion for a continuance in State v. Willie James Cunningham on Aug. 26, 2024, and reset the trial for Sept. 9, the court said. Ashley Jones, a prosecutor for the state, told the court the defendant's family had a preplanned out-of-state vacation and the state asked for the continuance. Scott, defense counsel for Willie James Cunningham, said he did not oppose the request with the defendant's permission. "At this time, they are out of state. And, for that reason, the state is requesting a motion for continuance," Jones said. Scott responded, "with mister Cunningham's permission, we agreed not to oppose their, request for continuous." The court directed the clerk to place the case for trial the week of Sept. 8 and confirmed the trial date as Sept. 9. The judge said the court would grant the state's motion once counsel signed the reset form and then excused the parties. Related calendar and scheduling remarks took place later in the session. The judge identified four cases remaining on the day's calendar to be handled at the next setting: Havana, Cifuentes, Garcia and Escobedo. In a separate matter, Michelle Battles was recalled and told she would return to court on Sept. 27; the judge said she may appear by Zoom but must be dressed appropriately for court. The court also informed parties that pretrial motions in another matter would be heard the following day and asked attorneys to confer with the clerk, identified in the record as Norma, about whether the hearing would be in the morning or afternoon. The court noted that matters the parties could not resolve by agreement would be heard by the court. No statutes, ordinances or other legal authorities were cited on the record during the continuance request.