The Bexar County District Court handled a large criminal docket on Oct. 30, 2025, accepting pleas, imposing sentences and granting deferred adjudication in numerous cases. The court repeatedly ordered treatment, random drug testing and limits on employment or contact in cases involving drugs, violent or sexual allegations, and animal cruelty.

The most detailed sentencing came in 2025 CR001454, State v. Havana Miller. After argument from the defense and the prosecutor, the court found Miller guilty and sentenced her to 10 years in prison suspended and probated for eight years. The sentence includes regular reporting (by Zoom or in person), random UAs, proof of employment or full‑time study within 30 days, a prohibition on employment as a home‑health worker or working with minors, 150 hours of community‑service restitution, anger‑management classes and a class referred to in the record as the “paws” course. The court also ordered no pet ownership during the eight‑year probation period and monthly field visits; the judge emphasized the point directly to the defendant: “Not even a goldfish,” regarding the prohibition on pet ownership.

In a separate matter involving sexual‑conduct allegations, the court accepted a plea and imposed an active custodial sentence, along with a fine and statutory compliance conditions. The court noted stipulations and exhibits in the record and imposed the sentence the parties had negotiated or the court deemed appropriate after considering victim statements, PSI materials and witness testimony.

The court also sentenced Michael Garcia in two related indictments (drug and weapons counts). The state proceeded on a drug possession count (28.564 grams noted in the police report) and a weapons count. The court accepted negotiated pleas and imposed concurrent 10‑year prison terms with a $1,500 fine; the sentences were ordered to run together.

Michael Garza pleaded no contest to a possession matter with an enhancement found true; the court sentenced him to two years in prison with credit for time served and a $1,500 fine, running concurrently with related cases. The court also ordered location‑specific no‑contact restrictions identified in the record.

Separately, the court approved deferred adjudication (probation) in multiple cases with standard conditions: regular reporting, random UAs, proof of employment or proof of benefits, program referrals (TAP, MRT or mental‑health evaluations), community service and, where relevant, prohibitions on working with minors or in home‑health roles. Defendants transferred probation to other counties (for example, to Cobb County, Ga., and Longview, Tex.) were noted and provisionally approved where probation could arrange a transfer.

Procedural notes: the court repeatedly reviewed PSI reports and allowed probation‑office materials and unsworn letters to be considered for sentencing, overruling hearsay objections in some instances so the court could decide whether to give the documents weight. Several defense witnesses (family members, friends, employers) testified in mitigation and urged treatment‑oriented outcomes rather than incarceration.

The docket included a mix of outcomes: active prison terms in serious felony matters, suspended sentences with lengthy probation and strict conditions in others, and multiple deferred adjudications tied to rehabilitation programs and monitoring. Several matters were continued or reset for further action when parties awaited lab reports, psychiatric evaluations or other discovery.

The court scheduled follow‑up hearings and status dates as needed for cases with pending reports or additional discovery.