Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Probation Revocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge finds probation violations true for Reagan Howard, revokes but defers final disposition and denies bond
Summary
In cause number 2239924 the defendant Reagan Howard pleaded true to multiple probation violation counts; the judge found the counts true and sufficient to find guilt but deferred formal revocation pending a pre-sentence report, denied bond and ordered probation to include support materials for sentencing.
A Jefferson County judge found that defendant Reagan Howard committed multiple probation violations and entered findings of guilt, but the court deferred final revocation and reset the case for sentencing. The judge denied bond and ordered probation to include supportive materials in the upcoming pre-sentence report.
At the plea hearing in cause number 2239924 the judge summarized the first amended motion to revoke, stating Howard had been placed on deferred probation June 10, 2024, for a third-degree felony of deadly conduct for discharging a firearm. The court asked each alleged violation and the defendant answered truthfully to counts alleging missed reporting, unpaid court fees, positive drug/alcohol tests, failure to perform community service, and failure to complete anger management. When asked whether she entered pleas “true to counts 1 through 9 and then 12 and 13 freely and voluntarily,” Howard answered, “Yes, ma'am.”
The judge said she would “find that you entered your pleas of true to those counts freely and voluntarily, find them true, find sufficient evidence to find you guilty, and revoke your probation, but I'm not going to do that. I'm going to reset your case for a sentencing hearing, and we'll get an updated pre sentence report done.” The court noted that the State could present evidence on counts 10 and 11 at sentencing.
On bond the judge denied a request that Howard be released pending the sentencing hearing, explaining the underlying offense — “deadly conduct discharging a firearm” — and Howard’s failure to comply with probation made release “not safe at this point until I have more information,” citing the applicable statutory standard (the court referred to ‘‘article, 1517’’ in the proceeding).
The court directed probation to gather the defendant’s support materials and any letters so they could be included in the pre-sentence report. The judge told Howard that probation would interview her and present information at sentencing, and that a decision on whether to keep her on probation, revoke it, or impose other sanctions would be made once the court had the updated report.
Ending: Howard was returned to custody pending sentencing; the judge made explicit that when the parties return the court would review the pre-sentence report and any additional evidence before deciding final disposition.
