252nd District Court resets numerous cases, orders counsel consultations; judge raises bond in one case and imposes sentences in others

The presiding judge of the 252nd District Court reset multiple initial appearances and directed defendants who have posted bond to either hire counsel or consult at least three attorneys before their next court date, court records and the transcript show.

The judge said the resets were generally for about 30 days and repeatedly warned defendants, “If you get someone hired before the next court date, just bring the reset notice that you get today to that lawyer. If you're unable to hire someone before the next court date, then I'm ordering you to visit with at least 3 more.” The instruction — repeated across the docket — was presented as a court order the judge would enforce by potentially raising bond for noncompliance.

The rule matters because it affected dozens of people on the court calendar during the session: several defendants were given time to secure counsel or to complete forms to apply for court‑appointed lawyers, and others were given brief resets while prosecutors and defense attorneys continue discovery and plea negotiations.

In two sentencing matters the court entered final dispositions. Devon Perkins, who previously pleaded guilty to theft of a firearm, was sentenced under an agreement to two years in state jail with that term probated for five years and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine. The judge explained the plea and its consequences and handed Perkins the written admonitions required by law about firearm possession following a conviction.

In a separate matter, Adam Crochet — who earlier entered a plea to injury to a child, a third‑degree felony — was placed on deferred adjudication probation for seven years and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine under the terms presented to the court.

The court also modified pretrial proceedings in other cases. In one hearing the judge found a bond violation after a defendant tested positive on a drug screen and raised that defendant’s bond from $5,000 to $20,000. The judge ordered that, as a condition of any renewed bond, the defendant be required to wear a drug‑monitoring patch and to comply with testing and bond conditions.

The docket included several other substantive procedural rulings: a hazardous‑waste indictment was amended on the record to correct the statutory subsection referenced (section 7.162, subsection (a)(2)) and to reflect the proper punishment range, and that case was continued 60 days to allow the parties and a property owner time to complete environmental testing and related discovery.

One case was resolved on terms the court recorded: in the matter of Jacoby Smith Barber, defense counsel announced that the parties had agreed to a restitution payment of $1,500 and that the state would dismiss the theft‑of‑service charge once that restitution was paid; the court reset the case to allow the payment to be completed.

Across the docket the judge repeatedly reminded defendants to follow their bond conditions, to avoid contact when no‑contact orders are in place, and to stay in touch with their attorneys and probation officers. The court provided forms for defendants who might qualify for court‑appointed counsel and instructed them to complete those forms accurately.

Several cases were continued for short periods because attorneys reported ongoing discovery requests, subpoena responses or potential plea offers. Where prosecutors indicated new information might lead to dismissal or to an amended charge, the court used shorter resets (two weeks) to allow the parties to resolve those issues or to file the necessary motions.

The session closed with the court noting that several matters would return on the rescheduled dates for announcement or disposition once outstanding discovery, restitution or supervision issues were resolved.