Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Probation Violation No Contact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court accepts a plea of true on a no-contact probation violation; Judge Boyd recalls matter for complainant testimony
Summary
The court accepted a plea of true to a no-contact-condition violation by John Thomas Hayes, waived other violations and reset the matter so the complainant can appear and explain outreach that precipitated the violation report.
The 187th District Court accepted a plea of true from John Thomas Hayes on a probation violation alleging prohibited contact with a protected person.
On the record, the state described the violation as contact or attempted contact with the protected person in March 2025, in violation of condition number 25. Hayes pleaded true to that allegation; the state waived the remaining violation allegations. Judge Stephanie Boyd accepted the plea but said the court needed the complainant to explain the context of the contact and whether she sought the contact, because the record suggested the protected person may have reached out to the defendant and then later sought continued supervision for treatment.
The court noted the apparent family context (the parties share a young child) and directed the complainant to appear by Zoom or in person to explain whether she initiated contact, whether she was intoxicated at the time, and whether she nonetheless wanted the defendant to remain on supervision and receive treatment. The court reset the matter for April 15 to allow the complainant to appear and to provide the court with fuller context before a final ruling on revocation or alternative conditions.
Judge Boyd warned that despite complainant statements, violations of no-contact conditions are serious; she accepted the plea of true but set the case for further proceedings so the court can understand the full facts and parties’ preferences before deciding on any revocation or sentencing change.
