Judge Boyd Orders Two Felipe Reyes Cases Tried Together; Denies Continuance

Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 180th District Court on May 23 ordered that two criminal causes against Felipe Reyes be tried together and denied the defense's motion for continuance.

The order to consolidate the cause numbers 2025CR000701 and 2025CR000700 came after defense counsel asked the court to try the matters together. Judge Boyd told Reyes’s attorney and the record that "both cases will be tried, together," and instructed counsel to file certain paperwork tying election and community-supervision motions to the combined cause numbers.

Why it matters: Consolidation changes how filings, certifications and any appellate record must be prepared and can affect how evidence and sentencing options are presented to a jury.

In open court, defense counsel argued they had received significant new recordings from the state only days earlier and asked for additional time to review them; Judge Boyd denied the continuance, stating simply, "Motion for continuance is denied." The defense also asked the court to exclude the state's recently filed witness list as untimely under the discovery rules; the court heard argument from both sides on statutory timing and discovery obligations, including discussion of Article 39.14-related material and Martinez v. State, but the transcript excerpt does not record a separate, final written order on exclusion of witnesses.

The state told the court the key tip that led to the investigation came through Crime Stoppers and characterized it as an anonymous tip, not a confidential informant, and the court recorded that the state had not identified a confidential informant. Judge Boyd noted that if a confidential informant did exist, different disclosure remedies could apply, but the state represented there was none.

Judge Boyd also gave direction to counsel on paperwork and recordkeeping needed for a combined trial: she asked that election for punishment and any written sworn motion for community supervision be made clearly and filed to show the same cause number(s); she requested an additional trial-court certification that lists both cause numbers; and she flagged that counsel should ensure judgments and other clerk filings reflect the consolidation.

Courtroom procedure and next steps: The court set voir dire and trial procedures in motion; jury selection followed after the court confirmed ranges of punishment and other jury instructions. The court and counsel were explicit that any references to defendant statements or to the facts of the case during voir dire and jury selection must be handled according to the court’s directions and the parties’ voir dire allocations.

No fines, sentences or guilt determinations were made at this hearing; the recorded actions were pretrial and procedural.