Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Probation Revocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge finds multiple probation violations for Millard Cummings but declines to revoke on attempted gun purchase
Summary
After a revocation hearing, Judge Stephanie Boyd found multiple probation violations for Millard Cummings, ordered intensified supervision with GPS, waived GPS fees, and declined to treat an attempted gun purchase as a separate violation because the written probation condition did not expressly ban an attempt.
Judge Stephanie Boyd, 187th District, found several violations of community-supervision conditions by Millard Daryl Cummings during a revocation hearing and imposed intensified monitoring rather than terminating supervision.
The state presented witnesses including Robert Cooney, a firearms associate who described two store visits by Cummings where the defendant selected a Ruger LCP and attempted the required transaction steps that accompany a firearm purchase. Probation officer CSL Parker testified that Cummings repeatedly missed daily calls to the UA (urinalysis) hotline, had not completed the court-ordered batterer intervention program (BIP) approved by probation (though he had completed an online course the officer said was not the court-approved program), and missed a TAP evaluation appointment.
Judge Boyd announced her findings on the record: she found violations of the UA-call requirement (condition 2), failure to enroll in the court-ordered BIP (condition 21), failure to call the UA hotline (condition 22), and failure to attend the TAP evaluation (condition 23) were true. The court determined a listed allegation that the defendant attempted to purchase a firearm had occurred — the court acknowledged the conduct — but concluded that the explicit probation condition read into the record prohibited purchase, receipt, possession, or transport of weapons (‘‘You shall not purchase, receive, possess, or transport any weapon…’’) and did not expressly prohibit an attempt; therefore the judge did not find the attempt itself a separate violation under the written condition.
Noting the defendant’s partial compliance (some classes taken, payment toward probation) and other circumstances the court chose a supervisory response: the judge continued the defendant on community supervision but ordered intensified conditions. The court placed Cummings on GPS monitoring with fees waived (partial GPS for employment and probation-related travel only), directed out-of-custody TAP and MC evaluations, ordered intensive supervision protocols (field visits, curfew as required), and imposed a 30-day jail sanction with credit for time already served. Probation was directed to require the court-approved BIP course and to document compliance; the court warned that future failures could lead to revocation.
