Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Domestic Violence Court Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge narrows no‑contact order: mother may transport defendant to medical appointments and court hearings but contact with minors barred
Summary
In State v. Jonathan Cain Allen, the court maintained a no‑contact order but carved out a limited exception allowing the defendant’s mother to transport him to medical appointments and court hearings; the judge emphasized continued restrictions, no contact with minors, and the need for mental‑health treatment and transportation resources.
In State of Texas v. Jonathan Cain Allen (2022 CR 11097), Bexar County Criminal Court left in place a no‑contact order but created a narrow exception allowing the defendant’s mother to transport him to medical appointments and court hearings. The court also ordered that there be no contact with minors and emphasized the defendant’s need for mental‑health care and stable transportation.
The defendant’s mother, Sally Rebecca Kane, testified that she wants to accompany him to psychiatric appointments and to help manage medication and care. Prosecutors and probation expressed safety concerns given past supplemental reports and disorderly‑conduct incidents that had prompted the original no‑contact restriction; the defense and several participants pressed for access to services, noting the defendant’s reported schizoaffective symptoms and difficulty accessing care while homeless or temporarily housed at Salvation Army.
Judge Stephanie Boyd limited the exception to physical transportation for medical appointments and court appearances; she declined to allow broader in‑person contact or phone/text communication. “The only exception to the no contact order is the following. She may transport him to his medical appointments and court hearings, and there’s to be no contact with minors,” the judge said.
The court and parties discussed options for transportation and service access through the Center For Health Care Services and ACCESS programming and acknowledged that some transportation may be available for clients of those programs. Probation and defense counsel discussed the practicalities of arranging appointments and field visits, and the judge directed probation and the State to verify any permissions and report back if anything changed.
Ending: The court’s order preserves the no‑contact restriction with a narrow, documented exception for transport to medical care and hearings and reiterates that any change would require court review if concerns about safety or noncompliance arise.
