Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Plea And Sentencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Defendant in 2024CR0787 pleads guilty; court defers finding and schedules sentencing
Summary
In State v. Harrison (2024CR0787), the defendant entered a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance; the court accepted stipulated evidence, deferred a finding of guilt and set a February 3 return for sentencing and evaluation. The plea included a punishment cap and a $1,000 fine listed in the agreement.
The court called 2024CR0787, State of Texas v. Harrison, and the defendant, identified in the record as Miss Harrison, confirmed she had reviewed discovery and the written plea with counsel. The judge reviewed the rights Miss Harrison would waive by pleading, including the right to a jury trial and the right to remain silent, and warned noncitizens of potential immigration consequences.
The prosecutor presented the state's exhibits in support of the indictment and noted there would be no live testimony; defense counsel waived reading of the indictment and indicated the plea. The court advised the defendant that the offense—possession of a controlled substance in penalty group 1, 4 to 200 grams—is a second-degree felony and explained the statutory punishment range (2 to 20 years and up to a $10,000 fine) before reviewing the negotiated plea terms.
According to the plea papers recited on the record, punishment under the agreement was capped at seven years in prison with a $1,000 fine; the state stated it opposed the defendant's application for community supervision. The judge accepted the stipulations and evidence, found there was sufficient proof to support a finding of guilt, then deferred making that finding and explained options for a presentence investigation (PSI) and a TAP evaluation. Defense counsel requested the TAP evaluation.
The court set a return date for sentencing and review of evaluations on February 3, when the judge said she would decide based on the evidence presented at that hearing. No live testimony occurred during the plea colloquy; the court explicitly advised the defendant of appeal-waiver provisions in the plea documentation and confirmed the defendant understood those rights.
The matter concluded with the court notifying parties of the next steps and the scheduling of the evaluation and sentencing date.
