Judge at Loss with Motion to Revoke Probation in Sexual Assault Case

Yesterday morning, the Honorable Judge Weatherby in the 340^th District Court of Tom Green County resided over Javier Torres’s “Plea of Not True to Motion to Revoke."

Javier Torres, 24, was sentenced to six years deferred adjudication probation after he pleaded guilty of sexual assault to a minor. He was 19 when the sexual assault occurred, and his female victim was 15. According to records, the assault occurred on July 30, 2011; Torres pleaded guilty 13 months later on Aug. 27, 2012.

During his probation period, Torres married his victim when she was of legal age to consent and had a child with her. The State motioned to revoke his probation because of 21 offense violations. For these probation violations, Torres claimed that he could not effectively comply with the terms established when he was away from his wife and daughter.

Overall, because of complexity of this case, maintaining the terms of Torres's probation has been challenging, and even Judge Weatherby had a hard time determining the outcome of the case.

The Issues with Probation

During Wednesday’s amended motion to revoke probation hearing, a list of probation offenses Torres had not complied with within the past few years were presented to the court. Torres pleaded, “not true” to all 21 offense violations presented. The offenses ranged from not paying probation fines to viewing pornography. 

Javier was said to have not paid his monthly $172.04 by the fourth of every month. He has missed payments for January, March, April, and October through December. He still owes $1,257 to the probation office.

The two probation violations involving pornography included Javier and his wife watching 50 Shades of Grey and a friend showing him a provocative photo. Torres claimed he was the one who told his probation officer about both offenses.

Also, to abide by his probation rules, Torres was not allowed to be within 1,000 ft. of any place where children attend, and he was reported by places like San Jacinto Elementary and the Texas Bank Sports Complex. On both counts, he said to just be passing by because of the route to and from work.

Torres is also not allowed to communicate or make contact with anyone younger than 17 years of age; however, on two occasions, he was reported having contact with his sister's children. On those counts, Torres argued that both of the occasions were coincidences. 

There were other violations on the list, but these were the specific ones highlighted during the hearing.

The State’s Argument

Assistant District Attorney Ashley Knight argued, “All issues with Mr. Torres’s probation were because he couldn’t see his wife and child. It has now been granted and he still cannot comply with his probation. So, the State is asking for him to be revoked from probation.”

During the hearing, Knight questioned Torres's probation officer Maggie Smith and Licensed Sex Offender Treatment Provider Emily Orozco. They gave details as to why and how Torres has failed to comply with the probation. They discussed how Torres is not even doing the simple tasks of turning in paperwork and reporting his change of employment.

When Orozco was asked by Knight, “Do you believe Javier is at a high risk to reoffend?” Orozco responded, “He has raised his risk to reoffend because of his failure to comply to rules of probation.”

Orozco also said, “(Therapy) would be futile for him because he was given permission to marry and live with his victim.” Orozco went in detail about the angle of therapy she would take with Torres, but since he lives with the victim, therapy will not help. 

The Defense’s Argument

Stephanie Goodman, Torres's defense lawyer, argued that her client was having some health issues and has just been trying to help and support his family while dealing with probation. Her witnesses were Torres's wife (his victim), his sister, and Torres himself.

His wife was one of the witnesses the defense put on the stand and it was to verify a few dates and to ask her what kind of person and provider Torres is.

"He does everything in his power to support me and our child," she said.

Torres's sister was brought up as well because she was asked specifically about the times he had been around her children.

“He is a great uncle and my daughter and him were very close," she said. "I would trust him with my children at anytime.”

Both violations were discussed, and on both occasions, it was said that Torres removed himself from the area to not violate parole.

Finally, Torres discussed some personal health problems and explained why some of these violations were listed.

“I told my probation officer about most of these occasions, but I didn’t realize they were going to use them against me,” he said.

The Challenge for Judge Weatherby

As the defense and prosecution wrapped up their ending arguments, the prosecution repeated what Judge Weatherby said last time Torres was in court, which was, “Next time he is in court, it will be zero-tolerance.”

Perplexed, Judge Weatherby looked at Torres and said, “I don’t know what I should do with you, and I did tell you last time that if I see you in court, it would be zero-tolerance. But I just don’t know what I can do with you. I will have to think about this.”

With that being said, Weatherby dismissed court so he could debate what to do with Torres.