Judge Boyd Discusses Pretrial Diversion Eligibility, Holds Bond Colloquy for Edward Valdez
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Edward Valdez’s matter was called for bond and pretrial-diversion status. The court discussed eligibility for PR bonds given statutory limits and directed counsel to confer with the state; the judge indicated willingness to set a low bond once the state provided an amount.
The court called State v. Edward Valdez for consideration of bond and pretrial-diversion status. Counsel advised the court that Valdez had been approved for a pretrial diversion program (PTD/PTD), and defense requested a bond reduction or PR (personal recognizance) bond. The judge explained there are statutory and rule-based limits on when a PR bond may be issued; providing a PR bond to an ineligible defendant could expose the judge and the court to legal challenge.
Judge Boyd directed defense counsel to confer with the state about an appropriate bond amount. The judge said she would set a low bond amount if the state agreed, but cautioned that she could not legally set a $1 PR bond in this case if statutory eligibility was not met. The court also explored the defendant’s custody history and outstanding warrants, and asked whether the defendant had been in custody previously for unrelated county matters; counsel provided background about a county-court misdemeanor and a pretrial-diversion agreement on another case.
The judge asked the defense to provide additional documentation and to confirm the diversion application status by email if the federal matter affecting the defendant changes. The court agreed to recall or reset the matter as needed and stressed that counsel should not leave the courtroom once their client has been requested from custody.