The 252nd District Court conducted a lengthy docket call during which the presiding judge handled initial appearances, plea agreements, sentencing and bond modifications across numerous cases.

Charles Newman, who previously pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (cause 25DCCR0545), was sentenced under a plea agreement to 10 years’ probation, ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and $1,653.75 in restitution, to enter and complete the JCDI intensive outpatient program, to wear a continuous drug‑testing patch and to serve 15 days up front in the Jefferson County Jail. The judge said the sentence reflects the seriousness of shooting at a vehicle and emphasized rehabilitation conditions tied to probation. “What you did is crazy,” the judge told Newman, underscoring the court’s concern about the conduct and the need for the ordered treatment and monitoring.

James Bruno (24DCCR1151) was sentenced consistent with his agreement to deferred proceedings and placed on probation for six years with a $1,000 fine after the court considered the presentence report. Charles Guidry (23‑41646) also entered a plea and, under the parties’ agreement, was sentenced to a probated state‑jail term (2 years probated for 5 years), a $500 fine and ordered to pay $6,136 in restitution. Deandre Smith (24DCCR2404), who previously pleaded guilty in a fatal‑collision matter, had proceedings deferred and was placed on three years’ probation with a $500 fine; the court held the ISF treatment term in abeyance but explained it could be imposed later if probation recommends it.

The docket also included multiple plea hearings and resets. Angel Coleman waived the formal reading of an indictment charging aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (25DCCR0888); the judge accepted her plea and reset the case for sentencing so probation could prepare a presentence report. Several other defendants — including Remington Boykin, Miguel Martinez and David Boyd — received routine resets while counsel continued discovery.

The court repeatedly reminded defendants who made bond that they must either hire an attorney or consult at least three lawyers and bring back the names, or risk a bond increase for failing to follow the court’s order. At the start of the docket the judge warned, “If you have any contact or communication at all, that bond will be raised and you’ll be back in jail,” defining contact to include messages or social‑media communications.

The court modified some bond conditions where the parties agreed or where circumstances warranted. For example, Isaac Mitchell pleaded to a lesser included misdemeanor and the judge removed GPS monitoring and the no‑contact condition with the complainant while ordering the removal of firearms from the home pending further action. In other matters the judge ordered supervised contact for defendants on bond where family‑court interaction and CPS involvement required limited supervised visits until sentencing.

Several cases were placed on review or trial dockets: the court scheduled jury selection for some matters next Monday and warned parties that, after the docket call, plea bargains might not be accepted for immediately calendared trials. The judge repeatedly instructed defendants to meet with probation on their way out of court to address paperwork and next steps.

The court’s actions on this docket consisted primarily of plea acceptances under defense/state agreements, sentencing consistent with plea deals, resets for discovery or presentence reports, and explicit instructions and conditions tied to bond and probation compliance. Many cases will return on later dates for sentencing or trial preparations.