[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6240634,"mediaKeyId","3318700-a92356fde5d7a78330f29080176ebfa5","parentId",3318700,"title","Judge orders inpatient competency restoration for two defendants; another case faces dismissal after restoration time expires","audioSeconds",441,"startMs",1292000,"endMs",1733000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3318700-a92356fde5d7a78330f29080176ebfa5&start=1292&end=1733","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3318700-a92356fde5d7a78330f29080176ebfa5/thumbnail_1292000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6240634/Texas/Judge-orders-inpatient-competency-restoration-for-two-defendants-another-case-faces-dismissal-after-restoration-time-expires","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6240634-b2c6312de79f747e412e3c842295a04d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770972298&Signature=lazLl4nWw~dFX1MFCxNq86xli0Zn9UNivQR10XMO6ZAbr6KTN6fQCU4aEKjeSsM5~PTyJDe668P1xrNy0VU8yHFY14mhbbleVjksWQ1Ua0bGVldFWVuuOwbjoV6griND9N4BgCyAEXLk9DhbnZ4sBv0pMNnB2EgvhZBgY~qhNchwFf0wyHD-gK-3TJCaeLv09TxwpFFXwbh0BBLlfspKky~lgm3nkdUpLkOzeEnVt-kIq0BFCnWMrBPJ4q-nNbS9EjlTQ38oy0Y4zzNqb2u22mSk-8wFb1-H4I794re10SqOQDPBLU1Mm1yJoqjxS2BCgkxx~p3I5L7dd5hmSeWm0w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-15T04:50:55Z","article","A Jefferson County judge found two defendants incompetent to stand trial and ordered inpatient competency restoration, and the court recorded that the state must dismiss a third case after the statutory restoration hold expired.

The court found Samuel Jones not competent to stand trial after considering a competency evaluation dated April 1, 2025, and ordered “inpatient competency restoration … for a period of not to exceed 120 days.” The judge said, “you’re gonna go to an appropriate hospital so that they can get you in a position where you can understand everything that’s going on, and we’ll get you back here and take care of your cases.”

The judge reached the same conclusion for Jonathan Rashard after taking judicial notice of an evaluation from Dr. Grapon dated April 4, 2025, and ordered inpatient restoration “not to exceed 120 days” so the hospital can attempt competency restoration.

By contrast, the court addressed Londie Vick’s long-running competency restoration placement and concluded she had not regained competency within the statutory time for a state-jail-felony restoration hold. The prosecutor explained that Vick “was found incompetent by this court and sent … in July of ’23” to a state hospital and that she “has failed to regain competency.” The prosecutor added that staff had “tried several, several different locations” to continue treatment and that the state was now “in a position to now have to dismiss the case.” The judge told courtroom staff she would “sign that when it comes through.”

What happened
- Samuel Jones: Judge took judicial notice of a competency report (dated April 1, 2025) and ordered inpatient competency restoration for up to 120 days. The defendant was remanded to the bailiff for transport to a hospital placement.
- Jonathan Rashard: Court took judicial notice of Dr. Grapon’s April 4, 2025 report and ordered inpatient competency restoration for up to 120 days.
- Londie Vick: Court found she has not regained competency and is beyond the allowable hold for a state-jail felony; the prosecutor said the state is positioned to dismiss the case and the judge said she will sign the dismissal when it is submitted.

Why it matters
Competency determinations and inpatient restoration orders pause criminal proceedings while the courts and treatment facilities attempt to restore a defendant’s capacity to understand the charges and assist counsel. When restoration efforts exhaust the statutory period without success, as the prosecutor said here in Vick’s case, prosecutors may be required to dismiss criminal charges even if treatment continues to be sought.

Court process and next steps
The judge ordered institutional placement for Jones and Rashard for up to 120 days and instructed staff to await restoration reports. For Vick, probation and jail staff have continued outreach to locate appropriate placements, and the court recorded that dismissal paperwork will be signed once submitted by the state.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Judge Raquel West's Personal Meeting Room","oneSentenceSummary","A Jefferson County judge found two defendants incompetent to stand trial and ordered inpatient competency restoration, and the court recorded that the state must dismiss a third case after the statutory restoration hold expired.","taxTitle","252nd District Court, District Court Judges, Judicial, Texas","taxId",66306,"location","Texas","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6240627,"Judge imposes probation tied to ISF, mental‑health and special‑needs tracks in multiple cases",110,207000,317000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3318700-a92356fde5d7a78330f29080176ebfa5&start=207&end=317","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3318700-a92356fde5d7a78330f29080176ebfa5/thumbnail_207000.jpg","/articles/6240627/Texas/Judge-imposes-probation-tied-to-ISF-mentalhealth-and-specialneeds-tracks-in-multiple-cases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6240627-e5bfc800e9ef36a367ec77079ea3249b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770972298&Signature=WWgUtw-5muv0aDXJJwIta9U6PHggGvctO3M8z0e-PcUWbg41yIN-4S~PVtbh9XDJI2uGsLGH4u6v2CJv8nnO-CUGDthoVbVhkxT3QMLmPuftWUrUIqXlLPUQKD0FQ8O0ybo5xycSiMjr1-5cc9jzr0KKVfZ-XZG~sUhaSkSfwrn1SaHmXg-hMk3lEPQVkkqIbL01XH2j0E1p-IOKolQhj3wmlTh2fnHPuNEg8SD~8xpDyEZUlmKW8c~Ah7n5stUi9tI6dKd5dNX5J~tqup9xPhHvfzdkPWQMkXbGEV5CJGtyVqnL9D1xr97rKYzhrqCTOucgue6sKezmNXMwkNpchw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The presiding judge at the 252nd District Court followed plea agreements in multiple cases, imposing probation or deferred proceedings conditioned on treatment programs such as ISF and special‑needs substance‑treatment tracks.

Isaac Darby pleaded guilty to a second‑degree felony, assault on a peace officer. The court found him guilty and, following the plea agreement, sentenced him to 10 years in prison but probated the sentence and placed him on probation for five years. The judge told Darby the probation conditions include entering and successfully completing the ISF program, a 90‑day program, and ordered a $500 fine. The judge warned, “If I get an incident report from our jail before you go to ISF, you may not even make it to ISF.”

Adrian Caballero pleaded guilty to a third‑degree felony of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle. The court deferred proceedings and placed him on probation for five years with a $500 fine; the judge said that successful completion would avoid a felony conviction on his record.

Oscar Thomas pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon; the judge followed an agreement to probate a 10‑year term and placed him on probation for 10 years. The court ordered a mental‑health assessment and required compliance with any recommended treatment as a condition of probation.

Maisha (Misha) Wells pleaded to assault on a peace officer and the court deferred adjudication, placing her on seven years’ probation and a mental‑health caseload; the judge told her she must “follow through with any help through Spindle Talk” and other recommended treatment.

Nikia Jackson, facing a motion to revoke, pleaded true to counts alleged in the motion. The court continued her on probation but ordered placement on the special‑needs SAFE track and emphasized “0 tolerance,” meaning missed appointments or tests could lead to an immediate motion to revoke. The judge explained there are regular SAFE and special‑needs SAFE tracks and chose special‑needs SAFE to address mental‑health needs.

Why it matters
The court used probation and deferred proceedings to link criminal-case dispositions with treatment requirements: inpatient‑style or structured community programs as a condition of avoiding active prison time. Judges explicitly warned defendants that violations or jail incidents could result in revocation and activation of the underlying prison sentences.

Key outcomes (selected)
- Isaac Darby: guilty of second‑degree assault on a peace officer; 10‑year sentence probated; probation 5 years; $500 fine; ordered to ISF (90 days).
- Adrian Caballero: third‑degree evading with vehicle; proceedings deferred; probation 5 years; $500 fine.
- Oscar Thomas: unlawful possession of firearm by felon; 10‑year sentence probated; probation 10 years; required mental‑health assessment.
- Maisha Wells: second‑degree assault on a peace officer; probation 7 years; placed on mental‑health caseload and required to follow treatment.
- Nikia Jackson: pleaded true to multiple counts on a motion to revoke; continued on probation and ordered to special‑needs SAFE track under 0‑tolerance.

The court repeatedly read defendants the trial‑court certification and admonished them about firearm ineligibility under Texas law in cases with firearms convictions.

","The presiding judge at the 252nd District Court followed plea agreements in multiple cases, imposing probation or deferred proceedings conditioned on treatment programs such as ISF and special‑needs substance‑treatment tracks.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6240613,"Judge reopens revocation for Michael Davis and resents to county jail credit under Texas Penal Code §12.44",349,4047000,4396000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3318700-a92356fde5d7a78330f29080176ebfa5&start=4047&end=4396","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3318700-a92356fde5d7a78330f29080176ebfa5/thumbnail_4047000.jpg","/articles/6240613/Texas/Judge-reopens-revocation-for-Michael-Davis-and-resents-to-county-jail-credit-under-Texas-Penal-Code-1244","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6240613-6c1236b78a0a055c5766020bde50846f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770972298&Signature=a9xr08STYiXpBspLN2S4T1mMcgpon99L88TBkASVFHy4p3VGIGazkE8w06g2WDygZNwCYAaXz0Hpe8zQsCHP3QOAxLQBBHO1zKdFd-~7REJ~NnLHuw2GhwbNdEWQ-kLpB1jKmx8RzKd9gB9EsURfIWmaVfPMWjh9bjyosYcRKU-WNyK9VtLaz4ukiLmhma-G8V61m8NYgevJzwpy9IzzO-d5Zgvbc~kr5HAltngBQOmfIapNxipf3K0CgQ9N~gmlhnlH2D1WamjMqVOA9GOj5ZGoo3QuQINnxNebMF5MrVUqJIOUrXupzwzzvBdcsqdqPnvCsuWLiH9zFeKeeCCoFw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A mistake in calculating incarceration credit prompted the court to reopen a revocation and re‑sentence Michael Davis under section 12.44 of the Texas Penal Code so he can receive appropriate credit and preserve a treatment bed in another jurisdiction.

The court acknowledged a prior plea and sentence for driving while intoxicated with a child and considered a motion from defense counsel explaining that the defendant’s credit for custody time had been miscalculated because a motion had not been filed until later. The defense and prosecution agreed it would be appropriate to reopen the revocation. The judge granted a motion to revoke and then assessed punishment under an agreement to 120 days in the Jefferson County Jail under section 12.44 of the penal code; the court ordered that Davis receive credit for any time in custody the law permits.

Why it matters
Section 12.44 allows certain state‑jail felons to serve time in county jails rather than state facilities, which can affect treatment placements and the defendant’s ability to access a treatment bed tied to conditions of probation in another jurisdiction. Here, the correct calculation of custody credit was material to whether Davis could keep a treatment placement and the appropriate length of county jail time.

Court action and next steps
The court revoked community supervision on the specified count, reassessed punishment under the parties’ agreement to 120 days in county jail per §12.44, and directed credit for lawful custody time. The trial‑court certification that accompanies plea agreements was provided and the defendant waived appeal rights on the matter per the court’s findings.

","A mistake in calculating incarceration credit prompted the court to reopen a revocation and re‑sentence Michael Davis under section 12.44 of the Texas Penal Code so he can receive appropriate credit.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6240619,"Judge denies bond‑reduction request for Calvin Randall amid new violent charges; July 2 hearing set",442,4629000,5071000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3318700-a92356fde5d7a78330f29080176ebfa5&start=4629&end=5071","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3318700-a92356fde5d7a78330f29080176ebfa5/thumbnail_4629000.jpg","/articles/6240619/Texas/Judge-denies-bondreduction-request-for-Calvin-Randall-amid-new-violent-charges-July-2-hearing-set","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6240619-d79f5d08e4e20baeb5dcd0064c3ed9ca/orig.mp4?Expires=1770972299&Signature=WwODgkkf25D9ljZwnuYcYkX623gH7mOzHV3NjFjcB-f8aJcs6MRdOjW4qfwhnCAC1bwvZhKADmqpZYfBUEaANkwdSe5eyo~R7IgzGzmjotNiFn8pq8xm4bEUxnCK-LdCMN7x-lvElEj01Xpwh6XkTryZl~4jnwedhO9~GDJUkEZegO3cMh9rRwdyJ8Q1yJoXrUYg38KZndeBwIpCMc2jIJEHB13BaxcvNORY4yqFPbW1PBspNuJhwWGYxhPTCb0mklw-71uW-BOiga0PntONTw9FVln0Fs0tJAqpSuCdy1APUZfWlxZYlKHUEfFtxrU1dG23-JT~HQP-mRggDHxdog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A request to reduce bond for Calvin Randall was denied by the presiding judge, who cited the seriousness of the new allegations and the defendant’s existing probation history.

Randall faces multiple new charges, including aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful carrying of a weapon on alcohol premises, and evading arrest with a vehicle. The court record shows bonds totaling approximately $325,000 across cases, including a $200,000 bond in the pending motion to revoke. Defense counsel asked for reduced bond so Randall could spend time with family before a July 2 revocation hearing; Randall volunteered to accept GPS monitoring if the court required it.

The prosecutor opposed a bond reduction and cited jail incident reports, including incidents dating back to February and May, and other disciplinary writeups. The presiding judge reviewed probable‑cause affidavits and the defendant’s underlying probation history and denied the motion to reduce bond in all cases, stating the allegations—particularly another aggravated assault with a deadly weapon—were similar in nature to the offense for which Randall was already on probation.

The judge set the next hearing on the motion to revoke for July 2.

Why it matters
Reducing bond for a defendant with a violent‑offense probation history and new allegations that include another aggravated assault could affect public safety and supervision options; the judge denied reduction, citing the seriousness and similarity of the new charges.

Court action and next steps
Motion to reduce bond denied on all cases. The court set the matter for a July 2 hearing to address the motion to revoke and related trial scheduling. Prosecutors indicated they will rely on jail incident reports and probable‑cause materials at future proceedings.

","The 252nd District Court denied a defense request to reduce bond for Calvin Randall, who faces multiple new charges including alleged aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; the judge cited the defendant’s underlying probation offense and pending allegations and set a July 2 hearing on the motion to revoke.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6240621,"Judge imposes no‑contact condition for complainant in Charles Young burglary case; declines to raise bond without testimony",251,2643000,2894000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3318700-a92356fde5d7a78330f29080176ebfa5&start=2643&end=2894","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3318700-a92356fde5d7a78330f29080176ebfa5/thumbnail_2643000.jpg","/articles/6240621/Texas/Judge-imposes-nocontact-condition-for-complainant-in-Charles-Young-burglary-case-declines-to-raise-bond-without-testimony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6240621-9d659ea354d4cc1316702f3ae38f55ae/orig.mp4?Expires=1770972299&Signature=Cj2dtZ31aQHBbZIcdVuHAPm9zFiIdOBZeZK3-gpo3Xkikf6N4uFwXSA2tUM67NaLZr9cITFIz3cdRCRsdXyNXlOYXCVcQqZBPa~Sv3X0rhiWlBBM0PgkKS5S70-NLdNdjz~ZszNFGtLSvZEHWqFCLy9JLomCephluKreJy37MlmBM97br2CPW~OviTpTwQbSNqflDU7OCmHZQakt48yHmOjKSC5CdZIIxkLmXjHikJuetX6QTGKrDLlK4pnENgFyYHvPZEErxTup5u5xmms~bCBFULTM7pSzJpj-lZsr0~6cDeJrTKAjpH4KSCTLm67MY9WockPNKYiA2J3hGtRpew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The presiding judge in the 252nd District Court granted a prosecutor’s request to admonish a defendant and impose a strict no‑contact condition with the alleged victim, but she stopped short of raising or revoking bond because the complaining witness was not present to testify.

Prosecutors told the court that complainant Mikayla (Mikaela) Harris had reached out with copies of text messages she and family members reported receiving that appeared to come from the defendant and that the messages threatened her. The prosecutor asked the court to modify bond conditions to prevent contact.

Defense counsel said he had not seen the messages and that his client told him he had had no contact after bonding out. The judge said she would not revoke or raise bond without testimony, but she imposed a strict order: the defendant must have “absolutely no contact with Mikayla Harris” by any means — in person, direct message, text, Snapchat, email, or through third parties — and warned, “If you do it, you’re going to jail.” The judge instructed the defense attorney to obtain the messages for review before the next court date.

Why it matters
No‑contact conditions are common in cases with alleged intimidation of victims; here the court used a protective condition rather than immediately altering bond because the complaining witness was not in court to present live testimony. The order carries immediate enforcement consequences if the prosecution later establishes prohibited contact.

Court action and next steps
The court denied the prosecutor’s request to raise or revoke bond without the complainant present but ordered no contact with Mikayla Harris and asked defense counsel and the state to exchange the relevant materials for the next hearing. The judge warned that if additional messages or reports of contact occur, the court will revisit bond and consider raising it or revoking bond and remanding the defendant to custody.

","In a burglary case before the 252nd District Court, the judge declined to revoke or raise the defendant's bond without the complaining witness present but imposed a strict no‑contact condition with complainant Mikayla Harris, warning that any contact would lead to jail and potential bond increase.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judge orders inpatient competency restoration for two defendants; another case faces dismissal after restoration time expires

Judge imposes probation tied to ISF, mental‑health and special‑needs tracks in multiple cases

Judge reopens revocation for Michael Davis and resents to county jail credit under Texas Penal Code §12.44

Judge denies bond‑reduction request for Calvin Randall amid new violent charges; July 2 hearing set

Judge imposes no‑contact condition for complainant in Charles Young burglary case; declines to raise bond without testimony