Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Plea Hearing Reset topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plea hearing for defendant identified as Prince reset after confusion over counsel and plea type
Summary
A hearing for the defendant identified as Prince was put off to the next day after the defendant expressed confusion about whether his plea was guilty or no contest and requested that his primary attorney, Daniel Delagarza, be present.
The court called case 2025CR002913 (State v. Prince) and engaged an on‑the‑record interpreter. The court reviewed admonishments, the range of punishment for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and the plea paperwork, and the state said it would recommend deferred adjudication and a $1,000 probated fine.
The defendant indicated an intention to plead guilty during questioning, but afterward said he wanted Daniel Delagarza, his principal attorney, to be present for the plea to be finalized. The defendant told the court he wanted Delagarza to be present; the court agreed to recall the case and set it for the next morning at 9 a.m.
The hearing included the court’s advisals that deferred adjudication carries a potential sentence range and that the court is not bound by the parties’ agreement. The transcript records the state’s recommendation of deferred adjudication, restitution to a person named Beatrice (transcript: "Beatrice, Umahora"), and an affirmative finding of a deadly weapon associated with the offense, but because the defendant requested his primary attorney, the plea was not finalized that day.
Provenance: the matter was called and the interpreter sworn; the plea paperwork and recommended disposition were discussed on the record; the defendant requested his lead attorney and the judge reset the matter to the next morning.
