Judge denies return of two seized firearms after pretrial diversion in 2019 drug case

Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court on the record denied an amended motion to return two firearms seized in case 2019CR10379 while ordering the return of $823 and three cell phones to defendant Christopher Ryan Caballero.

The ruling followed arguments on an amended motion for return of seized property. Defense attorney Jonathan Chavez asked the court to amend an earlier order so that the U.S. currency ($823) and three cell phones now be turned over to Caballero. Assistant prosecutor Andrew Harris did not object to turning over the cash and phones. Chavez then asked for return of the weapons that had been seized in the same cause.

In explaining the decision, Judge Boyd reviewed the written pretrial diversion agreement and legal text the parties raised. The court noted that Article 18.19 uses the phrase “if there is no prosecution or conviction,” and said it lacked controlling case law to define whether entry into a pretrial diversion contract amounts to a legal prosecution. Judge Boyd said that the record showed no conviction but that the appellate courts must ultimately interpret the statute’s meaning; on that basis she denied the return of the firearms.

The court specified the items by their docket entries: item 17 — $823 — and item 18 — three cell phones — were ordered returned to Caballero; item 14 (described in the record as a Springfield Armory XD-9 9mm handgun with one magazine and 12 live rounds) and item 15 (described in the record as a Sega 7.69 millimeter rifle with one magazine and 10 live rounds) were denied return. The court also advised that language concerning return of seized weapons should be placed explicitly in any future diversion contract if parties want to preserve the right to the property.

The court’s oral ruling stressed that the dispositive legal question — whether diversion constitutes a prosecution for the purposes of Article 18.19 — is a matter for the appellate courts or the Legislature to define. The record shows Caballero was placed into and completed a pretrial diversion program under the terms of an agreement that led to dismissal of the underlying charge; the court declined to treat that procedural outcome as equivalent to a statutory finding that would require return of weapons under the statute as currently interpreted.

The court’s order remains on the docket; counsel may pursue appellate review if they choose.