Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure Service topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge Boyd grants continuance in Roger Mims case to investigate service of protective order
Summary
Judge Stephanie Boyd granted a defense motion for more time in the Roger Mims felony matter so counsel can investigate whether a civil protective order was properly served; the court set a future jury-trial window and noted uncertainty about service requirements.
Judge Stephanie Boyd, 187th District, granted a defense motion for a continuance in the criminal case of defendant Roger Mims to allow further investigation into whether a civil protective order listed in the indictment was properly served.
The judge said the court would allow the defense time to “do your research,” and defense counsel told the court the state did not oppose the request. Defense counsel told the court they needed to “start tracing and tracking back the sequence of when he was served and who served him and what day it was and how he got notice of the hearing,” because that timeline is referenced in the indictment and may affect aspects of the case.
Why it matters: Whether and how a defendant received notice of a civil protective-order hearing can affect procedural rights and may bear on parts of the charged counts. Defense counsel described uncertainty about notice in the record: “Mister Mims does not recall much about the process getting served with notice or paperwork or anything, which if that is true, it could affect a lot of different things.”
The court granted the continuance and directed counsel to confer with prosecutors about scheduling. Defense counsel named Benton Leachman as a state party they hoped to consult. The judge and counsel discussed a prospective jury-trial timeframe in late summer; the transcript records multiple date references (August 5 and later September 9). The court repeatedly instructed counsel to coordinate and report available dates, and the judge confirmed she would allow the defense time to investigate the service issue.
The transcript shows defense counsel filed the motion the prior day and said the state was unopposed. The defense described the contested count as related to an alleged civil protective order; other counts “kinda speak for themselves,” the defense said, but the service question was central to the third count.
No trial testimony or merits determinations were taken at the hearing; the action was a scheduling/continuance order to permit additional factual and discovery work by the defense.
The judge also explained courtroom practice for trials and alternates in general: that bench trials are decided by the court, jury trials require 12 jurors and alternates are used to cover unforeseeable juror exits. The court said bench proceedings scheduled that day would begin at about 11 a.m.
