The 252nd District Court opened a packed bond‑forfeiture and pretrial docket and the judge moved through dozens of initial appearances, plea announcements, dismissals and resets.

The state requested that the court “take judicial notice of the corresponding court with your docket” and of the Von Corfature matter; the judge replied, “I will take judicial notice of both of those things as well.” The court clerk and prosecutors presented written judgments that the judge prepared to sign as part of routine case processing.

The judge announced several bond‑forfeiture actions and resets. The court ordered Espolon’s bond forfeited for nonappearance and reset at $100,000 and recorded at least one matter where a bondsman indicated a defendant was at large; the judge said the bond would be treated accordingly and noted a $30,000 bond increase in that context.

The court also signed dismissals in multiple cases. After reviewing filings, the judge said, “I’m signing the dismissal in your case right now. You’re free to go, sir,” when freeing one defendant. For other defendants the judge repeatedly reset matters about 30 days to give defendants time to attempt to retain counsel, and ordered that defendants who cannot hire private counsel consult at least three lawyers and bring names or documentation back to court.

Procedural requests and administrative questions occupied parts of the docket. The judge asked staff to verify bond conditions, confirm protective‑order status, and coordinate with probation staff when presentence reports were ordered.

What happens next: Many of the reset matters were given new dates; the court asked counsel to submit any written materials requested during pretrial conferences and indicated that formal rulings would follow those submissions.