Judge finds probation violations for Juan Sanchez, resets case for sentencing
Loading...
Summary
A Jefferson County judge found that Juan Sanchez admitted violating probation after a new DWI arrest and ordered an updated presentence report before sentencing.
A Jefferson County judge found Tuesday that Juan Sanchez committed multiple violations of his community supervision and reset the matter for sentencing so probation can prepare an updated report. Sanchez admitted the new-offense allegation that he was arrested on April 15, 2025, in Wharton County on a charge of driving while intoxicated (third or more), and he entered pleas of “true” to the revocation motion.
The judge said the court had sufficient evidence to revoke community supervision but would not revoke the probation immediately; instead the case was continued for an updated pre-sentence report from the probation department and a later sentencing hearing. The judge told Sanchez to provide any information he wanted the court to consider through his defense attorney, identified in the hearing as Mr. Franklin.
At the hearing, the court verified Sanchez’s original probation terms: Sanchez was placed on community supervision on Sept. 30, 2019, for a third-degree felony DWI that carried an eight-year prison sentence probated for 10 years. The court asked Sanchez whether he had received discovery; the prosecutor said discovery had been provided. Sanchez affirmed his pleas of true to each counted allegation in the revocation motion.
The judge also instructed defense counsel to provide any materials the defendant wanted the court to consider at sentencing and noted the probation office would prepare an updated report. The judge ordered administrative tasks — including obtaining the defendant’s fingerprints — to be completed while Sanchez remained in custody and directed the clerk to set a future sentencing date.
The proceeding distinguished plea admissions (the defendant’s statement that the allegations were true), the court’s finding of sufficient evidence to support revocation, and the court’s decision to delay an actual revocation and sentence until it had the updated probation report. No sentence was imposed at the hearing.

