Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Man accepts no-contest plea, court grants deferred adjudication and orders $6,000 restitution in collision case
Summary
Judge accepted a no-contest plea in State v. Eduardo Jose Medina, deferred a finding of guilt and ordered restitution of $6,000 to the victim; the court set seven years of community supervision and multiple conditions including 200 hours of community-service restitution and random drug testing.
Judge Stephanie Boyd accepted a no-contest plea from Eduardo Jose Medina in Cause No. 202500065 and deferred a finding of guilt, imposing community supervision and restitution to the victim.
The plea arose in a case described by the court as a collision involving serious bodily injury, a third-degree felony. The judge told Medina the range of punishment and that by pleading he would be giving up trial rights; Medina answered, "No contest." The court admitted the state's exhibits and, after reviewing them, found there was sufficient evidence to find guilt and deferred the finding because Medina applied for deferred adjudication.
The court accepted a plea agreement that includes a $500 fine and restitution of $6,000 payable to Madison Canales (or Matt Canales). The judge set restitution payments at $500 per month beginning June 1 and directed probation to ensure restitution is paid first. The court also imposed a seven-year term of community supervision with requirements including proof of employment within 30 days, no employment as a home-healthcare provider or with minors, regular reporting by Zoom or in person, random urine analyses, 200 hours of community-service restitution (with 100 hours to be satisfied by a driver safety course and the other 100 hours by completion of higher education or a trade certificate), and field visits once per month for three months.
Defense counsel told the court Medina would make full restitution and discussed the circumstances: "At the time of this offense, my client was working, and this was a short lunch break. He had called in an order of food at a Chick-fil-A ... and after he pulled through the line, he encountered the pedestrian ... he did stop, he did get out of his car to check on us," counsel said during sentencing argument. The judge cautioned Medina that failure to make agreed payments could lead to a motion to revoke.
The court concluded by reiterating that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his jury rights and that probation will report conditions and compliance. Probation was directed to prioritize restitution payments.
