Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Court Docket topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
252nd District Court hears multiple guilty pleas, revokes or extends probation in several cases
Summary
The presiding judge accepted guilty pleas, revoked probation in some cases and ordered sentences or evaluations in multiple matters, including deferred probation agreements, a reduced bond in one matter and a placement in a special‑needs safety program for another defendant.
The presiding judge in the 252nd District Court processed a series of pleas and revocation hearings on Tuesday, accepting guilty pleas, imposing sentences in several matters and ordering evaluations or program placements for others.
The docket included guilty pleas resulting in immediate sentencing or resets for pre‑sentence reports: Laddie Johnson was found guilty of resisting arrest and sentenced under the parties’ agreement to 200 days (credit for time served noted); Mikaelan Jones’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced under agreement to 21 months in state jail; Crystal Moore pleaded guilty to theft with previous convictions and was sentenced under agreement to 21 months in state jail; Camden Jackson pleaded guilty and was placed on a seven‑year deferred probation with a $500 fine under the agreement; other defendants including Peyton Woodruff, Melissa Taylor and others had pleas taken and the judge reset those cases for pre‑sentence reports.
The court also addressed probation‑revocation hearings. The judge found Caprina Swan’s pleas of true to alleged probation violations and revoked her unadjudicated probation but—rather than sending her immediately to prison—accepted the probation department and state recommendation to place her in a “special needs safety” program and extended her probation from five to seven years.
Kevin Harmon entered a guilty plea to an offense described on the record and the court advised him of immigration risks; the judge found the plea voluntary, ordered a pre‑sentence report and reduced his bond to $1,000 with conditions including that he live with a named third party while the matter proceeds.
Several other matters were continued or reset so probation could prepare pre‑sentence reports. In those resets the judge repeatedly instructed defense counsel to provide supporting letters or information to probation for the court’s consideration at sentencing.
The judge repeatedly emphasized courtroom expectations and the consequences of continued violations while in custody. In one contested plea the judge told a defendant: “If you have one between right now and your sentencing, I will not accept this plea agreement,” referencing jail incident reports and the court’s discretion to reject negotiated disposals if behavior does not improve.
The docket included multiple advisals that guilty pleas may carry immigration consequences and written admonishments about firearm possession were given where applicable. Several defendants were given credit for time already served where the record supported that calculation.
Cases with plea agreements were often reset to allow the probation department to produce pre‑sentence information so the court could set an appropriate sentence. The court’s calendar also included motions that were continued to allow counsel to complete discovery or file amended motions.
Courtroom procedure: the judge directed counsel to confer and produce any outstanding paperwork to probation or the clerk, and the court set multiple future dates for sentencing, confirmations of probation conditions, or final dispositions.
