Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Sentencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge orders concurrent prison terms after revocation findings in Brousard case
Summary
The 252nd District Court found multiple revocation counts true against Ebony Brousard and sentenced her to concurrent terms — two six-year institutional sentences and an 18-month state-jail term — after the judge cited repeated probation failures and ongoing substance use.
A judge in the 252nd District Court on the docket day found multiple motions to revoke probation true against Ebony Brousard and imposed concurrent custodial sentences.
The court recited that Brousard had been on deferred probation in several matters dating back to 2017 and 2020 and that updated reports showed repeated failures to comply with treatment and testing requirements. Defense counsel argued that Brousard had completed earlier programming and faced addiction issues; the prosecutor urged enforcement of public-safety considerations. The judge said the record reflected continuing substance abuse and revoked portions of probation as to the offenses presented.
The judge pronounced judgment: counts in cause numbers 19‑32518 and 19‑32806 were found true and the court sentenced Brousard to six years in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Corrections on each of those matters. In cause number 21‑36615 the court found Brousard guilty of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced her to 18 months in the state jail. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The court credited Brousard for jail time already served and handed her the trial-court certification explaining appeal rights.
The judge additionally provided a written admonishment that, as a result of the judgments, Brousard is ineligible under Texas law to possess a firearm or ammunition and that possession could lead to further charges. Defense counsel and the court noted the possibility of appellate rights and post-judgment procedures.
The court set the administrative work on entry of judgments and noted the clerk’s entry into the court computer system would follow in the next day or two. The matter concluded with instructions about appeal paperwork and counsel contact.
