Go to main contentsGo to search barGo to main menu
Thursday, July 30, 2026 at 5:43 AM
Ad

District Court July 21

District Court July 21

The Tenth Judicial District Court convened on Tuesday, July 21, with Judge Thomas Stockard presiding.

Gonzalo Diego Nunez pleaded guilty to the wobbler charge of Attempt to commit grand larceny of personal goods or property of a value of $1,200 to $5,000.

A wobbler may be sentenced as either a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a fine of $2,000; or as a felony, punishable by 1 – 4 years in prison and a fine of $5,000. Sentencing was set for August 11 to allow time for victim notification.

Kaza Kaylor, in custody, admitted to a technical probation violation for using prohibited substances.

Senior Deputy District Attorney (SDDA) Chelsea Sanford argued that Kaylor has been on probation for five months and has accumulated repeated violations by continuing to use controlled substances while failing to pay restitution. The State asked that her probation be temporarily revoked for 30 days.

Defense Attorney Charles Woodman acknowledged that Kaylor had tested positive for controlled substances several times and did not object to the State's request for a 30-day sanction.

Judge Stockard temporarily revoked Kaylor's probation for 30 days, with credit for 13 days served. He also ordered a substance abuse evaluation.

Courtney Elizabeth Clark, in custody, appeared for sentencing on a charge of Principal to Grand Larceny of Personal Goods or Property, Property valued at more than $1,200 but less than $5,000. The offense is a Category D felony and is punishable by 1–4 years in prison and a fine up to $5,000, to which she pleaded guilty on Feb. 24.

SDDA Chelsea Sanford argued that Clark failed to appear for both her Pre-Sentence Investigation interview and multiple court hearings, demonstrating that she is not a suitable candidate for probation. Sanford said Clark has repeatedly blamed others for her conduct, including her friends and former boyfriends.

Sanford also read from the victim impact statement, which described the lasting emotional effects of the theft.

“Being robbed takes a toll on people psychologically and affects people long after financial problems are cleared up,” the victim wrote. “I don't think there's any chance of Courtney paying restitution. I believe Courtney to be incorrigible, and she will be doing the same thing the first chance she gets. Jail won't hurt or help me, but it might prevent someone from becoming her next victim.”

Sanford argued that Clark's conduct and criminal history demonstrated she was not an appropriate candidate for probation.

CCPD Jacob Sommer acknowledged that Clark had squandered a favorable plea agreement by failing to appear.

“Ms. Clark has engaged in conduct that probably means that she doesn't deserve probation,” Sommer told the court. He argued that mercy can sometimes produce the greatest return, saying Clark has begun to recognize how her actions have affected her family. The defense requested probation with strict conditions, including 60 days in jail to be served on weekends.

Clark told Judge Stockard, “I am very ashamed of the fact that I did try to not come to court … I really do feel like I deserve at least a chance … I really hope that you think I can have a chance at parole and probation.”

Judge Stockard sentenced Clark to 19 to 48 months in prison.

“I have considered probation,” Stockard told Clark. “I've also considered your previous criminal history … I'm not going to grant you the privilege of probation.”

Clark was remanded to the custody of the Churchill County Sheriff's Office for imposition of the sentence.

Rene Lucio Williams, in custody, admitted to a non-technical probation violation, and new charges have been filed against the defendant.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Lane Mills told the court, “Williams did poorly as you probably expect from his criminal history … Here he is on probation again … At some point there has to be consequences for conduct. If there are no consequences for conduct, that's not good for our society at large.”  Mills asked for revocation of the defendant’s probation, stating, “He’s used up all of his chances.”

Churchill County Alternate Public Defender Wright Noel agreed that there is no question here that his client violated his probation. Noel said what's important is that when they go to find his client, “they find him at his job.”  He noted Williams has always been employed

This was an indiscretion on his part. It was a felony; I don’t think he realized it was a felony when he did it … I do think another chance here is warranted.”

Williams told the Court he has no problem with doing house arrest, inpatient, or outpatient. He stated, “Sending me back to prison does nothing for me … I understand I messed up and I'm willing to do the repercussions … I messed up one time … and here we are, sir.”

Judge Stockard revoked Williams' probation, telling him that his conduct “goes to the very heart of supervisability … it goes to the very honesty of the ability to supervise you. Stockard imposed the underlying sentence, and Williams was remanded to the custody of the sheriff’s office.

Paul Lee Jr's sentencing was continued to August 4.

Jacob Robert Strock was not present for his scheduled sentencing. A bench warrant is currently in place.

 

 

More about the author/authors:
Share
Rate

Comment

Comments

July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 1
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 2
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 3
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 4
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 5
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 6
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 7
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 8
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 9
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 10
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 11
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 12
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 13
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 14
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 15
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 16
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 1 Page no. 1
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 2 Page no. 2
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 3 Page no. 3
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 4 Page no. 4
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 5 Page no. 5
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 6 Page no. 6
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 7 Page no. 7
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 8 Page no. 8
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 9 Page no. 9
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 10 Page no. 10
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 11 Page no. 11
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 12 Page no. 12
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 13 Page no. 13
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 14 Page no. 14
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 15 Page no. 15
July 31, 2026 -Battle of the Badges Blood Drive Co - page 16 Page no. 16
SUPPORT OUR WORK