Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Plea Deferred Adjudication topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge accepts deferred adjudication in aggravated-assault case against Christopher Cruz
Summary
In 187th District Court, Judge Stephanie Boyd accepted an application for deferred adjudication from Christopher Cruz, imposed a probated $1,500 fine and ordered a six-year term of community supervision with conditions including an affirmative finding of deadly weapon and family violence.
Judge Stephanie Boyd accepted an application for deferred adjudication from Christopher Cruz in a hearing on an aggravated-assault charge, imposing probationary conditions and an affirmative finding of family violence and deadly weapon.
The plea hearing established that Cruz faces a second-degree felony carrying “a range of punishment … from 2 to 20 years in prison and up to $10,000 fine,” the judge said while ensuring Cruz understood the consequences of entering a plea and waiving trial rights.
The court deferred a finding of guilt and imposed the following conditions, as described on the record: a $1,500 fine to be probated, six years of deferred adjudication/community supervision, 100 hours of community-service restitution, anger-management classes, a TAP evaluation with follow recommendations, a gang evaluation, random urinalysis testing, proof of employment within 30 days of release, and no employment as a home‑health provider or work/residence with minors. The judge ordered there be no contact with the complainant (identified in court as Samuel Cruz) and made affirmative findings of family violence and use of a deadly weapon; the affirmative family‑violence finding carries a court-imposed prohibition on owning or possessing weapons or ammunition.
The court explained to Cruz that the deferred adjudication could be revoked later and, if revoked, the defendant could be found guilty and sentenced up to the statutory maximum for the charged offense. The judge also confirmed defense counsel’s representations about available defenses and competency.
Judge Boyd explained reporting requirements and enforcement: regular reporting either by Zoom or in person, random UAs, monthly field visits, and that missed appointments could result in arrest warrants for probation violations. The court noted a referral to felony drug court was being made and that in‑custody TAP evaluations could take two to three weeks; the judge directed probation and other conditions be monitored by supervising officers.
Cruz told the court “Yes, ma’am” when asked to confirm his plea choice and waiver of appeal on the record. Defense counsel confirmed the plea as presented on the record.
The court closed by instructing the probation office on supervision and confirming the defendant understood the terms and conditions stated on the record.
