The Fort Bend County Court at Law No. 1 convened a status docket by video where the judge set pretrial dates, directed parties to exchange outstanding discovery and mitigation materials, and recorded several passings and continuances across a range of criminal cases.

The judge opened the session noting, “We’re on the record in ‘24 CCR 240063 and 240058. State of Texas versus Marvin Lee Davis Jr.,” and then proceeded through a long status docket covering numerous defendants and counsel, many of whom were told their next pretrial conference was scheduled for Sept. 4.

Why it matters: the court’s directions — to submit mitigation packets, fix mislabeled or missing discovery, and subpoena records for restitution — shape whether cases resolve by plea before trial or require in-person settings on the scheduled pretrial dates.

Most immediately, defense counsel for Marvin Lee Davis said he would assemble a mitigation packet and submit it to the district attorney’s office “ASAP” for consideration for PTI; the judge reminded counsel the matter must be resolved by the pretrial on Sept. 4. For Michael Andre Harris III, defense counsel said the state provided an offer the previous day and needed to contact his client; counsel and the client exchanged a phone number during the hearing. The judge released several defendants from the virtual call after taking those updates.

Several cases were continued or passed because counsel or parties were unavailable. The court paused one matter while waiting for an interpreter to arrive; interpreter Pamela Pizuro identified herself on the record: “I do, your honor. For the record, my name is Pamela Pizuro. License number, LCI2431.” In the Juan Manuel Ramirez matter, defense counsel reported working toward an affirmative‑defense investigation and said he would visit the scene within the week; the state said it was awaiting additional materials from the defense to substantiate a legal-justification claim.

Discovery and evidence problems surfaced repeatedly. In the case of Deontay Adam Johnson, defense counsel said the surveillance disc would not play and asked the state to provide a playable copy and the police report; the prosecutor said the offense report was mislabeled as notes and that a 13‑page report had been shared previously. In Liana Marie Mendoza’s matters, the state said restitution figures remained pending and that it had issued a duces tecum for an auto mechanic’s records; defense counsel said the case likely could be resolved once the exact restitution amount was provided.

Multiple prosecutors and defense attorneys reported that plea offers had been made or were forthcoming. In several matters the court urged the parties to try to resolve cases before the in‑person pretrial dates (many set for Sept. 4 or Aug. 21 as noted by the judge) and reminded counsel that the court’s in‑person docket would require courtroom appearances when scheduled. For example, counsel said the state’s “rock‑bottom” offer in one case was 120 days and that the defendant would need a plea date if she chose to accept it rather than go to trial.

The judge repeatedly instructed parties to exchange missing materials and to contact court staff if they wished to set plea dates before the pretrial conference. Where a defendant’s attorney was absent or a defendant did not appear, the court warned counsel that bond forfeiture procedures could proceed if the defendant could not be reached, and in at least one matter counsel was directed to attempt one more contact before the court proceeded.

The status docket concluded with the judge reminding counsel of the upcoming in‑person pretrial conferences and passing the remaining matters to those dates. The court recorded no final judgments or contested evidentiary rulings during the virtual status docket — the proceeding primarily produced scheduling directions, requests for additional discovery or documentation, and confirmation of plea‑offer negotiations.

Less critical follow‑ups: several cases were continued to in‑person pretrial dates; counsel and prosecutors were directed to re‑label and re‑upload discovery where files were missing or mislabeled (platform referenced as Odysee); and the state said it would provide updated documents to defense counsel once subpoenas or re‑burned video discs were available.

The docket ended when the judge said, “Alright. That concludes the status docket,” and adjourned the virtual session.