Judge Stephanie Boyd accepts pleas, imposes deferred adjudication and sentences in multiple Bexar County cases

Judge Stephanie Boyd, presiding judge of the 187th District Court in Bexar County, heard a docket that included guilty pleas, deferred-adjudication grants and several case resets. Courtroom proceedings produced prison time in one matter, probationary conditions and mental-health referrals in others, and scheduling for pending evaluations and attorney motions.

The proceedings matter because they resolved multiple felony cases, imposed conditions that affect defendants’ liberty and supervision, and set follow-up steps — including mental-health evaluations and probation monitoring — that will determine whether some defendants avoid longer incarceration.

The court accepted a guilty plea and imposed a prison sentence in State v. Robert Garza (cause numbers 2024 CR 012483 and 2024 CR 011532). Christine Brown, representing Garza, confirmed receipt of discovery and that Garza had reviewed plea documents with counsel. Judge Boyd found the state’s exhibits sufficient, accepted Garza’s guilty plea and the enhancement allegation as true, and sentenced him to two years in prison and a $2,000 fine; the judge said the sentence "will not be probated." The court ordered the two cases to run concurrently and recorded there was no restitution; the judge also ordered no contact related to specified business locations, citing "Walmart in general" and a specific IHOP as sites tied to the matters.

In State v. Jamal Ricardo Fisher (2024 CR 011671), the state proceeded on a plea to a count that the court treated under the parties’ agreement. The court deferred finding of guilt and placed Fisher on four years of deferred adjudication with conditions the court described on the record: a $1,500 fine to be probated; an affirmative finding of family violence; regular reporting by Zoom or in person; random UA testing; mental-health evaluations (TAP and other in-custody evaluations as needed); referral to felony drug court for dual-diagnosis treatment; 100 hours of community-service restitution (with up to 50 hours eligible for waiver if Fisher uses his CDL in employment); and requirements for employment proof or SSI and monthly field visits until a case manager is in place. Fisher addressed the court at length and said, in part, "These days I choose happiness." His father and mother spoke in court about ongoing family concerns; Judge Boyd said she would allow limited phone contact with parents initially and consider in-person contact only on probation staff and treating clinicians’ recommendation.

In State v. Yoshio Dela Cruz (2024 CR 009415), the court granted the parties’ request for deferred adjudication and imposed a seven-year term with probationary conditions the court listed on the record: a $1,500 fine probated; an affirmative finding of family violence; 150 hours of community-service restitution (50 hours deductible on successful completion of the BIPP course); a BIPP course and TAP evaluation with follow-up recommendations; 90 sober-support meetings in 90 days; prohibition on employment as a home-health provider or in positions involving minors; monthly field visits for an initial period; and a prohibition on weapons or ammunition. The court allowed travel for bona fide out-of-state work if probation is notified in advance.

Other docket items: the court reset several matters because defense counsel were not present or because the court’s scheduling system (referred to on the record as "Odysee") failed to generate notice for attorneys. One defendant’s attorney had filed a motion to withdraw; the court scheduled the hearing on that motion for the next day and warned that the court would take further action if counsel did not appear. In a separate matter the court confirmed that a competency evaluation had been requested for Ricardo Garcia; Judge Boyd explained that once a competency evaluation is pending, proceedings pause, and she set a return date to verify whether the evaluation is complete.

Judge Boyd delivered several on-the-record admonitions to defendants about future conduct and the consequences of revocation. At one point she told a defendant considering plea outcomes, "you have to ask yourself, is all of this worth it? Were those pancakes worth it?" The court repeatedly stated that recommended probation conditions from the state were recommendations only and that the court would set conditions it found appropriate.

The court scheduled follow-ups and ordered probation referrals and mental-health evaluations where indicated. Several defendants were excused after the court took the pleas and set the conditions.

Notes: the transcript does not specify an exact calendar date for the session; case cause numbers and plea/sentencing language are recorded verbatim in the transcript and are summarized here without inference about unrecorded facts.