Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Probation Restitution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge extends probation for Perry Carrillo while restitution is verified
Summary
In a June 12 docket call at the 187th District Court in Bexar County, Judge Stephanie Boyd granted a one-year extension of probation for Perry Carrillo and ordered the state, defense and probation to verify documentation for a multi-thousand-dollar restitution claim before requiring payment in full.
SAN ANTONIO — Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court on Thursday granted a one-year extension of probation for Perry Carrillo while the court and parties verify a disputed restitution amount tied to a 2016 case.
The extension was granted after the court and defense counsel said the presentence investigation (PSI) and other files list differing restitution figures. The judge said the “original amount of the restitution was $14,000. He's paid to date $5,238, leaving an $8,762 balance,” and ordered the parties to confirm documentation before enforcing a final total.
The court explained why it would not simply enforce an undocumented figure: “Unless there's documentation, I don't think it's fair for someone to pay restitution if there was no documentation,” Judge Boyd said.
Defense counsel told the court the $18,000 figure that appears in some reports lacks supporting invoices or billing records. The state said it would check its files and reach out to the complaining witness to determine whether the victim has already been made whole, and the court’s investigator volunteered to attempt contact as well.
Judge Boyd set an extension of one year on Carrillo's probation and left the matter open for the parties to reconvene once documentation or agreement is obtained. She said if defense or probation later shows the court that no restitution is owed, she “will strongly consider just terminating” the extended supervision.
The judge also cautioned the parties about the age of the matter: she noted the underlying conduct dates to 2016 and expressed concern that records or receipts might no longer exist, but still ordered follow-up attempts to locate supporting documentation.
Ending: The court gave the parties leave to bring the matter back on the docket with any substantiating documents; until then the probation extension stays in effect and the previously asserted restitution balance remains under review.
