Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Docket Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge Stephanie Boyd accepts pleas, reduces one bond and refers defendants to drug treatment programs
Summary
In a multi-case docket, Judge Stephanie Boyd accepted pleas and deferred-adjudication terms in several cases, denied some bond reduction requests while reducing one bond to $80,000, ordered TAP evaluations and referrals to felony drug court, and set a psychiatric exam for another defendant.
Get email alerts on the Criminal Docket Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge Stephanie Boyd presided over a multi-defendant docket in the 187th District Court, accepting pleas and ordering a mix of deferred adjudications, conditions of supervision and treatment referrals on Wednesday.
The court took pleas in a number of cases, including 2025 CR015736 (State v. Marielle Higgins), several cause numbers tied to Courtney Price (2026 CR000096, 2026 CR000217, 2026 CR000214), 2025 CR013249/013246 (State v. Matthew Luna), 2025 CR015517 (State v. Juan Romero) and 2025 CR013879 (State v. John Simpson). In each matter the judge confirmed the defendants had reviewed discovery and admonishments and accepted stipulations of testimony and exhibits presented by the state.
On bond for the Courtney Price matters, the court heard testimony from Pierre Harrison, who said she had cashier’s checks totaling roughly $10,800 and was prepared to assist in posting bail. After considering the submissions the court denied the bond-reduction motions in two causes and granted a reduction in one cause (2026 CR000214), setting bond at $80,000 and imposing no-driving restrictions and ignition-interlock requirements where appropriate. "I will be able to afford whatever she needs," witness Pierre Harrison told the court about covering bond costs.
Several defendants were placed on deferred adjudication with conditions that include reporting by Zoom or in person, random urine analyses (UAs), community-service restitution and program requirements. For example, the court accepted a deferred-adjudication agreement in 2025 CR015736 and set terms that included outpatient treatment, field visits, proof of employment and parenting classes; the court allowed the defendant to travel to participate in a year-long research program organized through the HOPE program.
In Romero’s case, the state opposed deferred adjudication, telling the court Romero had recent probation violations and an associated out-of-county driving-while-intoxicated matter. Judge Boyd found Romero guilty, sentenced him to five years in prison suspended and probated for six years, ordered a TAP (treatment assessment and placement) evaluation in custody and referred him for felony drug court. The judge announced the sentence in open court: "The court is going to find you guilty. The court will sentence you to five years in the prison, suspended and probated for six years." (Judge Stephanie Boyd).
John Simpson’s matter included a review of prior convictions and options offered by the court: a TAP evaluation and possible treatment or an immediate custodial sentence. The court ordered a TAP evaluation in custody, directed follow-up as recommended by TAP, and later pronounced a sentence of one year in the state jail facility suspended and probated for three years, along with conditions such as no unsupervised contact with minors and community-service requirements.
In another matter defense counsel advised the court that a psychiatric evaluation would be necessary; the court set a return date for the evaluation and scheduled the matter for further proceedings in early May.
The court repeatedly emphasized that defendants who accepted plea agreements had waived certain appellate rights by signing appeal-waiver paragraphs in their plea documents. Several cases were continued or reset for discovery or assessment deadlines where records were still outstanding.
What happens next: defendants ordered to undergo TAP evaluations or other assessments will be processed by probation and treatment providers; bond-related orders will be executed by the clerk and jail; and the court will reconvene on the scheduled reset and review dates.

