Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Docket Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge Stephanie Boyd orders warrants and resolves multiple pleas on Bear County docket
Summary
At a Bear County criminal docket, Judge Stephanie Boyd ordered judge's warrants for absent defendants, accepted guilty/no‑contest pleas in several matters and imposed sentences or deferred adjudication with conditions including probation, community service and drug‑court referrals.
Get email alerts on the Court Docket Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge Stephanie Boyd opened a criminal docket and ordered judge's warrants for absent defendants while accepting pleas and setting sentencing or supervision conditions in multiple cases.
On the bench at the Bear County Courthouse, Deputy Lara announced State v. Kelly Jean Cadena (2025 CR015234). Defense counsel Brandon Lopez told the court he had no contact with the defendant; Judge Stephanie Boyd said she would issue a judge's warrant and remand the defendant without bond.
The court then called State v. Amber Cortez (2025 CR014731). Defense counsel Robert Ramirez confirmed discovery had been exchanged and Cortez acknowledged reviewing admonishments. Cortez entered a no‑contest plea to the charges after the state presented exhibits; the court found sufficient evidence and deferred sentencing pending a same‑day drug test to verify Cortez's reported hospital medication. After hearing the drug‑test plan and defense mitigation, Judge Boyd imposed a five‑year sentenced term that was suspended and probated for six years. Conditions include community supervision, 100 hours of community service (50 hours may be satisfied by completing parenting classes), restitution, parenting classes, referral to felony drug court, proof of employment within 45 days, no contact with Ingram Park Mall and no employment as a home‑health provider or in work with minors. Probation reporting will be by Zoom or in‑person with regular random UAs.
Alan Hazelwood appeared for State v. Alan Hazelwood (2026 CR000209) and pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance (state jail felony, less than one gram). After the state submitted exhibits and defense asked the court to follow the plea agreement, the court sentenced Hazelwood to 30 days in the Bear County Jail under the cited authority 12.44, with credit to be applied for any time he had already served; the judge noted coordination with Travis County regarding custody credit.
The court addressed a no‑show issue on matters for Angelo Ryan John (2025 CR015699 and 2025 CR015701). With the defendant absent and counsel reporting no contact, the court ordered a judge's warrant and remand without bond.
In State v. Meadows (2024 CR0828), Mr. Meadows consented to appear by video conference, waived in‑person appearance, and applied for deferred adjudication. The court deferred a finding of guilt and ordered four years of deferred adjudication, a transfer of supervision to Clark County (Nevada) as requested, 120 hours of community service, an anger/hostility management course, monthly field visits for six months (if field visits occur), proof of employment within 45 days, regular random urine analyses and a $1,000 fine that will be probated.
The judge closed the docket and advised parties to return on the next scheduled appearance day. Several entries noted that the state or defense counsel would follow up with other jurisdictions to coordinate custody credits or transfers.
Representative quotes from the hearing include Judge Boyd's direction that "the court will issue a judge's warrant and remand your client without bond" when a defendant failed to appear, and Amber Cortez telling the court she had "just had a baby a week ago" when explaining her medication status prior to the scheduled drug test.
The court's actions included warrants for absent defendants, acceptance of pleas, sentences to jail or suspended terms with probationary conditions, and approval of deferred adjudication with transfer of supervision. Several items (custody credits and inter‑jurisdictional transfer logistics) were left for follow up with other counties.

