Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Judge presiding over Bexar County felony docket accepts pleas, sets supervision and restitution dates
Summary
A Bexar County felony docket session recorded pleas and sentencing terms across several cases: Charlotte Smith pleaded no contest and the court entered a guilty finding with probation conditions; other matters included deferred adjudication, jail time for one defendant and scheduling of TAP evaluations and a restitution hearing.
Bexar County felony court convened for a plea and docket call in a session that resolved several cases and set follow-up steps including evaluations and a restitution hearing.
In State v. Charlotte Smith, the court confirmed that the defendant reviewed discovery and waived a jury trial before entering a no-contest plea. "Miss Smith, did you review the application for community supervision with your attorney? Did you understand it and sign it?" the judge asked; the defendant replied, "Yes, ma'am." The court accepted state exhibits and "after reviewing state's exhibits ... the court will find there sufficient evidence to find you guilty," the judge said, then described the recommended sentence: an assessed term of four years suspended and probated, a $1,000 fine probated and recommended community supervision with specified conditions including TAP and MC evaluations, a felony theft course, and community-service restitution with reductions for completing parenting classes, MRT and GED or trade-certification work.
Defense counsel acknowledged Smith's unstable housing and mental-health needs and noted she had told police she had burned mail to keep warm. The defense said the defendant "admitted stealing the mail" during an interview with police; the court discussed rehabilitative conditions and noted program enrollment could affect probation conditions and early termination.
Other docket outcomes included:
- A counsel reassignment and 30-day reset in the case of Philippe Cantu; counsel said he would obtain prior counsel's file and the case was reset to June 8.
- Timothy Nichols had his conditions amended to add intensive outpatient treatment and documented sober-support meetings; the court ordered UA hotline monitoring and 60 hours of community service restitution with deductions for completed sober-support meetings.
- Joseph Hooghey's application for deferred adjudication was opposed by the state because of a repeat-enhancement; the judge declined deferred adjudication and entered a conviction, imposing a suspended five-year sentence with probation, a $2,000 fine probated, a TAP evaluation and community-service conditions including partial satisfaction for college enrollment or sober-support meeting completion.
- Kelvin Williams' plea to deferred adjudication was accepted with recommended terms including two years of community supervision, 100 hours of community service and regular UAs.
- Angel Marino's plea was accepted and the court assessed 127 days in the Bexar County Jail with credit for time served; the judge noted the defendant also faces a separate out-of-county matter.
- In Eric Mason's matters (two cause numbers), the court accepted stipulated evidence, ordered a TAP evaluation in custody and scheduled a restitution hearing for May 25 (parties discussed May 26 as an alternate) so the court can determine any restitution amount before final disposition.
Throughout the docket the court emphasized procedural protections and the limits of plea bargains: "If you have a plea, the court does not have to follow your plea," the judge reminded defendants, noting defendants who accept pleas waive certain appellate rights and may be unable to keep firearms following felony convictions.
Next steps: judges and counsel agreed to return for scheduled hearings and to provide discovery or TAP evaluation results to probation or the court before the follow-up dates; the court set multiple recall dates (including May 12, May 25/26 and June 8) to address outstanding discovery, redaction disputes, TAP reports and restitution matters.
(Quotes and specific conditions reflect the court record; timings and case identifiers were taken from the docket as read in court.)

