Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Docket Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge Nahara moves a packed criminal docket, setting bonds and trial dates
Summary
A busy docket heard plea-deadline resets, discovery disputes and multiple bond decisions — including a $200,000 bond — and set contested hearings and jury trials through February; the court also ordered GPS and no-contact conditions in several matters.
Get email alerts on the Court Docket Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
In a prolonged session the presiding judge called a crowded criminal docket and issued a string of scheduling orders and bond rulings, including multiple plea-deadline resets and jury-trial dates across January and February.
The court repeatedly cautioned attorneys about discovery and evidence logistics and directed deputies to manage defendants in custody. Counsel raised recurring problems: missing CPS or school records, large video files that must be reviewed in secure locations and delays in PSI/TAP evaluations. The judge told attorneys the court will recess at 11:45 and reconvene at 1:30.
Among formal rulings the court set a $200,000 bond with full GPS and no-contact conditions in State v. Jonathan Dreamer; ordered a $7,000 bond with GPS-waived fees and no-contact in State v. Imani Robinson; reinstated $12,000 bonds in the matter of Gage Guerra; and set a $75,000 bond with partial GPS and no-contact conditions for Abelino Lopez while scheduling a contested hearing for Dec. 11. The court denied a motion to alter bond conditions in State v. David Duenas.
Several matters were reset for discovery or contested hearings in December. The court noted that PSI/TAP evaluations may take "approximately 8 to 12 weeks," and in some matters told parties to arrange secure video viewing and to coordinate with deputies when defendants in custody must be brought to court.
In one revocation matter the judge accepted an alternative supervision plan: in State v. Miguel Contreras the court followed a proposed agreement to place the defendant on the mental-health initiative caseload and require outpatient dual-diagnosis treatment, with monthly field visits to monitor compliance.
The court recessed after completing the morning calendar and directed clerks to enter the orders and notify parties of dates and conditions.

