Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Revocation And Sentencing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Noah J. Gonzales revoked from community supervision, sentenced to 200 days in state jail; multiple cases run concurrent

5470242 · July 25, 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

Noah Javier Gonzales pleaded true to a probation violation; the court revoked supervision and sentenced him to 200 days in a state jail facility in multiple cause numbers to run concurrent, with several no-contact orders and a request for therapeutic-community referral.

Noah Javier Gonzales appeared with counsel and waived earlier representation issues; he pleaded true to a probation violation and the court revoked his community supervision, sentencing him to 200 days in a state jail facility. The court ordered the sentences in several cause numbers to run concurrent and imposed no-contact orders with identified individuals. Nut graf: The court accepted Gonzales’s waiver and plea, imposed concurrent 200-day state-jail sentences across listed cause numbers, ordered credit for time served, and requested therapeutic-community placement consideration. Restitution and victim contact issues were discussed but not evidenced in the record for this defendant. Counsel confirmed that the defendant had been given options previously and that his former attorney had a medical emergency; a standby/second-chair attorney participated. The defendant acknowledged understanding of the consequences and waived his right to appeal. The court ordered that the sentences run concurrently and explicitly listed no-contact provisions with named individuals. The court again cautioned on consequences of a felony record and limited rights following conviction. Ending: The judge reiterated the consequences of the plea and urged the defendant to engage in services; the court requested therapeutic-community placement and explained appellate limitations arising from plea waivers.