Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Restitution Hearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge orders restitution hearing after dispute in theft plea; hearing set for Dec. 11
Summary
In a theft case, the court accepted a plea for deferred adjudication but set a separate restitution hearing after defense refused to stipulate to the full amounts the state listed for third-party claimants. The court clarified which amounts were contested and scheduled sentencing for Dec. 11.
The 187th District Court on Oct. 24 accepted a no-contest plea from Jan Madura on a lesser-included count of theft but scheduled a separate restitution hearing after the defense questioned the totals the state listed for third parties.
Judge Stephanie Boyd found there was “sufficient evidence to find you guilty” and deferred a finding of guilt while Madura applied for deferred adjudication, but she made clear the court would not accept paperwork that crossed out stipulations to the state’s exhibits in a way that left all evidence unstipulated. “If you’re not stipulating to any amount, then everything is a challenge,” Boyd told defense counsel, noting the need for a properly revised, sworn plea form.
The parties told the court they had agreed Madura paid $1,077.01 to the Junior League of San Antonio and that payment had been made. The disagreement centered on larger amounts listed below the line in the state’s exhibit: the state recommended restitution to Berkshire Hathaway of $9,799.42 and $227.71 to Visa. Defense counsel said the total listed in the state’s exhibit (about $11,000) was likely too high and asked that any dispute over Berkshire Hathaway and Visa be left for third-party civil claims. The judge rejected a request to defer entirely to civil court and said the contested amounts were subject to an evidentiary hearing in criminal court.
After discussions about how to present contested amounts on revised plea paperwork, Judge Boyd set a restitution hearing and sentencing for Dec. 11 and ordered counsel to reprint and re-sworn corrected documents before the defendant was re-placed under oath.
The court emphasized the narrow scope of the plea paperwork: items “above the line” in the plea agreement (including the Junior League payment) were part of the agreement; items “below the line” (the Berkshire and Visa figures) were contested and would be resolved at the scheduled hearing.
Court calendar entries show the matter will return on Dec. 11 for the restitution hearing; the court instructed prosecutors to be prepared to present evidence on the contested amounts and defense counsel to identify precisely which third-party amounts remained in dispute.
Provenance: first related remarks appear when the court discussed stipulations and contested amounts during the Madura plea colloquy; the judge set the restitution hearing and sentencing at the end of the discussion.
