252nd District Court: judge finds defendant incompetent, accepts pleas and hands sentences; multiple trials set

The judge presiding in the 252nd District Court issued a series of rulings Tuesday that included a competency finding and inpatient restoration order for one defendant, acceptance of guilty pleas and sentences in several cases, deferred disposition and probation in others, and multiple resets and trial settings.

The judge found Sally Pope not competent to stand trial and ordered inpatient competency restoration. "I am going to find Miss Pope not competent to stand trial, find that she is mentally ill and needs inpatient intervention for competency restoration, and we will transport Miss Pope to the appropriate facility for a period of not to exceed 120 days," the judge said.

The ruling on Pope followed the court's review of an evaluation by Dr. Praphan, which the judge said the court took judicial notice of. The judge recorded that there was no other evidence presented regarding competency from either the state or defense.

Several defendants entered pleas and received sentences. In cause number 24DCCR2143, the court accepted a guilty plea from a defendant identified as Mr. Eaton to an attempted state-jail felony count of obstruction/retaliation and sentenced him under an agreed package to 12 months in the county jail, citing section 12.44 of the Penal Code. The judge advised the defendant that, because of the judgment, he is ineligible under Texas law to possess a firearm or ammunition and handed him a written admonishment.

In cause number 24DCCR1603, Onisha Dugas — who previously entered pleas of true to counts in a motion to revoke — was found by the court to have pleaded true to counts 1 through 12, and the judge sentenced Dugas to eight years in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The court noted the sentence will run concurrent to another sentence and provided the required trial-court certifications and firearm-admonishment paperwork.

The judge deferred proceedings and placed Kevin Alfred on probation in three related causes (24DCCR1291, 1292 and 1143). For each case the court found sufficient evidence, but deferred adjudication and imposed 10-year probation terms with $250 fines and required completion of a special-needs program and related treatment; the judge warned that a probation violation could result in a prison sentence up to the statutory maximum.

The court also revoked probation in two consolidated matters involving Jody Wells. The judge found Wells’ pleas of true to multiple probation-violation counts (counts 3, 4 and 6) and found sufficient evidence to revoke probation in the listed causes, but reset the cases to allow the probation department to prepare updated pre-sentence reports and to schedule a hearing for witnesses on an alleged new offense.

Numerous defendants rejected plea offers and had cases set for trial. Those who rejected offers and were placed on the trial docket included: Augusta Simon (who rejected a 45-year offer and elected jury trial), Bryce Thomas (trial set after prior plea offers were rejected), Corey Carter (rejected a 5-year offer; trial set; bond and speedy-trial issues noted), Johnny Polanco Sr. (rejected a 25-year offer; trial set), Marcus Austin (rejected a 35-year offer and will be tried), Michael Brasher (trial set to begin with jury selection next Monday), and Christopher James (rejected a 50-year offer and trial set). The court repeatedly warned that plea offers discussed in court would not be held open after the date of rejection unless new evidence surfaced.

Other docket rulings included competency and readiness findings: for Brandon Deems the court took judicial notice of a December 9, 2024 evaluation and found him competent to stand trial; in several cases the court granted short continuances or reset matters for review or additional preparation (for example, a 30-day continuance granted in 24DCCR1028 for Tony Fears to allow investigators and the parties to address restitution questions).

The court gave repeated admonitions about medication, treatment and confinement conditions in several cases and ordered specific programming as conditions of probation (for example, the judge ordered substance-abuse tracks, MHMR/high-needs caseload enrollment, ISF/JCDI programming, and required compliance with medication where recommended). Where statutory consequences were implicated — for example firearm ineligibility on conviction — the judge handed written admonishments and reviewed those consequences on the record.

The docket call produced routine procedural orders as well: multiple defendants were reset for hearings to allow counsel to negotiate or review discovery, motions to quash and reindictment issues were set for review dockets, and the court directed counsel to file specific motions when required to preserve speedy-trial and bond issues.

Ending note: The court repeatedly reminded defendants that signing plea-rejection forms or entering pleas carries direct consequences (trial settings, sentencing ranges, or loss of appeal rights through trial-court certification) and urged compliance with any recommended treatment or medication plans to avoid revocation or a harsher range of punishment on future violations.