Judge Boyd refers Teresa Frias to felony drug court, imposes multi-year deferred adjudication and supervision terms
Loading...
Summary
In a hearing on a pending case, Judge Stephanie Boyd directed a referral for felony drug court and imposed deferred adjudication with reporting, random testing and program requirements for Teresa Frias.
Teresa Frias was referred to felony drug court and given deferred adjudication by Judge Stephanie Boyd during docket call in the 187th District Court.
The referral followed receipt of a felony drug court report and agreement from defense counsel that the program was appropriate. Judge Stephanie Boyd said the court would impose a term longer than two years because felony drug court carries a two-year program plus an aftercare period, and she outlined the supervision conditions she would require.
The court ordered deferred adjudication for a multi-year period (the judge described the disposition as more than two years, with drug-court timing noted by the bench), regular reporting by Zoom or in person, random urine analyses, a requirement to show proof of employment within 30 days, prohibition on employment as a home-health provider or in work with minors, and monthly field visits by probation until further notice. The court also directed a referral to felony drug court and emphasized that success in the program would depend on the defendant’s participation and treatment compliance.
Defense counsel agreed to the referral and described Frias’s trauma history and need for evaluation and treatment. Probation and the defense also discussed reporting and supervision logistics; the court reiterated that drug-court placement and the length of community supervision ultimately depend on program eligibility and the defendant’s progress.
The judge additionally set community-service and other supervisory conditions tied to treatment and program participation as part of the deferred disposition. The court told Frias that felony drug court and probation conditions are intended to support treatment and reduce future arrests, and encouraged compliance and communication with probation services.
No fine amount, specific start date for the program, or exact deferred-adjudication term length beyond the court’s verbal description was recorded on the docket transcript; those details were left to the formal written order and program intake processes.
The case remains under the court’s supervision with the referral and conditions entered on the record; counsel were directed to follow up with probation and the drug-court coordinator for scheduling and paperwork.
