Judge recalls warrant for man living in his car, directs referral to community court and behavioral-health services

Judge Stephanie Boyd recalled a judge’s warrant Thursday for a defendant who had failed to stay in touch with pretrial services and is living in his vehicle, and she directed court staff and the prosecutor to pursue community‑court placement and connections with behavioral‑health services.

The defendant, identified in court as Mr. Phillips, told the judge he had not been able to keep phone contact because he had been homeless and living in his car. Judge Boyd said the violation report normally triggers a warrant or bond forfeiture but that, instead of remanding him, she would recall the warrant and attempt to connect Phillips with services. “So I’m gonna recall the warrant,” Judge Boyd said.

The judge ordered the pretrial services officer — identified in the hearing as Claudio Trevino — to join the hearing by Zoom so staff could exchange contact information and confirm reporting requirements, and instructed Deputy Laura and court clerk Norma to provide the defendant a reset form and document his address so pretrial has a reliable contact. Judge Boyd told Phillips he must report to Pretrial Services upon release and that the office would expect contact by a specific business‑day deadline.

Judge Boyd also asked the prosecutor to consider whether the defendant qualifies for community court and requested that court staff check with the Center For Health Care Services and the community‑court coordinator (Renee Muñoz was asked to come forward during the hearing) to see if services, housing help and bus passes could be arranged. “This seems to me like this is what the community court would be for,” Judge Boyd said, citing the combination of homelessness, mental‑health needs and the pending drug case.

The court set a status/reset date (parties discussed returning in late February or specific dates as the calendar allowed) and instructed the State to email supervisory pretrial staff if the officer did not respond before the defendant’s next appearance. Judge Boyd emphasized that failure to comply with pretrial conditions could still lead to a violation report, but that she wanted the defendant connected to a case manager and housing resources before pursuing enforcement: “If you had a case manager, your case manager would be able to help you with your memory or at least help stay on top of these appointments,” she said.

Court staff and the prosecutor agreed to seek community‑court intake and coordinate with the Center For Health Care Services (the court referenced the Eastside clinic) and the ACCESS program for potential transportation or case‑management services.

Ending: The court formally recalled the judge’s warrant for the defendant and set a date to return so that pretrial and community‑court screening could be confirmed; the judge directed that contact information be exchanged on the record and that the defendant report to pretrial services upon release. If the defendant does not make the required pretrial contact, the court said it may resume enforcement proceedings.