The 187th District Court heard testimony in cause 2017CR5709, State v. Michael Daniel Bissett, on alleged violations of community supervision. Judge Stephanie Boyd took the question of revocation under advisement, ordered the defendant to remain on GPS with partial allowances for work and medical appointments and scheduled a review of sentencing in late January.

The state read multiple allegations that Bissett failed to submit to court‑ordered drug testing and failed to report to his supervision officer at various times dating to 2018 and 2022. Prosecutor Melissa Alban told the court the state sought revocation and incarceration; defense counsel Charles Bryant asked the court to consider alternatives that would allow Bissett to continue caring for his terminally ill daughter.

Bissett testified under oath. He acknowledged missing supervision and said he stopped reporting in July 2018 after receiving a positive urinalysis because he was afraid of being arrested. He described quitting alcohol and illicit drugs, starting a profitable landscaping business and paying for his children’s needs. He also said his 18‑year‑old daughter’s cancer had returned and was terminal, and that he provides medical and financial support for her care. “I put myself at the mercy of the court and mercy of you, judge,” Bissett told the court.

Judge Boyd reviewed the statutory options the court faces on a motion to revoke; the judge noted the court must take custody when prison is the only available disposition but may postpone sentencing while considering alternatives. With no objection from the parties, the court found specified violations true but declined to immediately impose a term of imprisonment. Instead the court ordered continued GPS monitoring (partial, for work and medical appointments), waived GPS fees, and set a hearing for the court to announce its sentence in the new year.

Defense counsel asked the court to allow Bissett to turn himself in only after ensuring continued insurance and medical coverage for his daughter; the state indicated it had no objection to the court’s consideration of those concerns. The court instructed the parties that if the presiding judge remains unavailable, another judge might make the ultimate sentencing decision at the scheduled review date.

The matter remains pending; the court’s temporary direction—GPS monitoring and a late‑January review—was entered on the record.