Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Docketing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jim Hogg County court resets related cases, reinstates bond and dismisses one matter
Summary
At a Jan. 26, 2026 docket call in Jim Hogg County District Court, the judge reset multiple criminal cases amid disputes over subpoenas and counsel availability, reinstated a defendant’s previously entered bond and dismissed one case on the state's motion.
Judge Elizabeth Moore presiding at the Jim Hogg County District Court on Jan. 26, 2026 reset multiple criminal matters, narrowed a pending subpoena dispute to sovereign-immunity questions, reinstated a previously entered bond for one defendant and granted a state motion to dismiss another case.
The court began by calling cause 6204, involving Juan Francisco Chavez Urbe, and granted a defense request to reset that matter. Counsel then addressed cause 5701 (Juan Pablo Verdinas Urbina), where defense and state counsel reported a stipulation that could avoid calling several witnesses — though the parties said they still planned to call Victor Escalon, Claudia Molina and Norman Madreal. Defense counsel said some subpoenas had been re-served in person to cure prior service concerns and asked the court to limit further hearings to sovereign-immunity issues.
"Reset is granted," the judge said when setting new dates. After discussion about the unavailability of counsel from the attorney general’s office, the court set a consolidated return on Feb. 19, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. for the related matters so the motions to quash and other issues could be addressed together.
Co-counsel identified on the record as working with the Texas Rio Grande Public Defender’s office asked the court to accept that in-person service cured earlier defects and to narrow the remaining dispute to sovereign immunity; counsel offered to circulate a stipulation to that effect.
On separate docket calls the court addressed individual defendants: in cause 24 CRJ 21 (State v. Eric Brandon Karansa) the record reflects that the defendant’s previously entered bond was reinstated and the defendant was ordered released; the court set a pretrial for Feb. 5, 2026 and scheduled announcement dates on Feb. 19 and March 5, with a trial date discussed on the record.
In cause 24 CRJ 27 (State v. Jose Abraham Salgado) defense counsel filed a notice and requested bond; the prosecutor indicated no objection to a personal-recognizance bond in the amount of $10,000. Pretrial/reset dates of Feb. 5 and Feb. 19, 2026 were noted and a trial date was discussed for March 26, 2026.
The state moved to dismiss cause 23 CRJ 26 (State v. Felix Lement), and the court granted the motion: the case was dismissed on the record.
The court called additional matters on the morning calendar and then took a short recess to confer with counsel in chambers.
What happens next: the court set the related matters for Feb. 19, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. for further rulings. Several parties said they would circulate stipulations in advance; the transcript records counsel asking to limit the remaining dispute to sovereign-immunity grounds rather than relitigate service issues.
