At a remote county-court docket session, several defendants entered pleas and the court described sentences and conditions, often granting deferred adjudication and setting probation terms.

State v. Henry Medina Rodriguez (2025-CR-007287B): Rodriguez waived a jury trial and applied for deferred adjudication. The court found sufficient evidence after reviewing State exhibits and imposed five years deferred adjudication, a $1,000 probated fine, 120 hours of community service, transfer of supervision to Williamson County, random UAs, regular reporting (Zoom or in person), a fire-safety course, and a mental-health evaluation. Defense counsel stated no restitution claim had been paid; the court recorded that no restitution was owed based on the record.

State v. Valerie Herrera Medina (2022 CR3009): After canvass, the court deferred finding of guilt while a deferred-adjudication application was pending and set follow-up (PSI/TAP) for January 26. The state recommended community supervision for two years with recommended conditions including a TAP evaluation, 150 hours of community service, restitution and the DEEP course; the judge noted those recommendations are not binding and that actual supervision length and conditions are at the court’s discretion.

State v. Manisha Moore (2025 CR 009091): Moore consented to appear by video and waived jury trial; she entered a plea of no contest in exchange for the state’s recommendation of deferred adjudication. The court accepted State's Exhibit 1 and attachments, deferred a finding of guilt, and sentenced Moore to deferred adjudication with a $1,000 probated fine, recommendation of a two-year supervision term, TAP assessment, 150 hours community service, restitution (amount not specified), an anti-theft course, no-contact conditions tied to multiple HEB locations in San Antonio, proof of employment within 45 days, and regular random UAs. The judge explicitly stated that conditions outside the plea are recommendations and the court may impose different terms.

Other docket matters: Several cases were recalled (e.g., Jesse Diaz Jr.) and set for plea-deadline dates or jury settings if no agreement is reached. The court repeatedly emphasized that parties may recommend terms but the court has sole discretion to set the length and conditions of community supervision.

The court also reminded defendants on probation to maintain communication with probation officers and to provide releases to allow probation to verify treatment. In multiple cases the court ordered or discussed TAP or PSI evaluations and set return dates for further proceedings when appropriate.

Most custodial fines, hours of community service, and other specific numeric conditions were pronounced on the record; when restitution or other details were unknown, the court recorded "no restitution" or left the restitution amount as not specified on the public record.

The docket closed with scheduling of several matters for the following week to address paperwork, swearing in of witnesses, and trial-ready logistics.