Two high-profile court cases have moved ahead in recent days.
A Dolores man has been charged with second-degree attempted murder and illegal discharge of a firearm by the 22nd Judicial District Attorney Will Furse.
Dustin Ray Wall, 30, was advised of the charges during a court appearance Wednesday. He is being held in the Montezuma County Detention Center on a $100,000 cash-only bond. A preliminary hearing is set for June 26.
On April 26 in Dolores, Wall allegedly drove a white pickup alongside a Chevy Impala occupied by a man he knew and fired two shots from a handgun, according to arrest warrants and witnesses. Bullets hit doors of the car, which was parked on Second Street. The victim was not hit.
According to witnesses, the pickup then left the scene. The truck was found abandoned on Linden Street in Cortez and impounded. After an investigation, an arrest warrant was issued for Wall.
After the shooting, witnesses said the victim in the Impala moved the vehicle to another location on Second Street. At first, he could not be located, but was later found hiding in the Impala’s trunk because he had an active warrant.
Road 41 caseIn the other case, on Wednesday, 22nd Judicial District Judge Todd Plewe again denied a landowner request for an injunction to prevent Montezuma County from maintaining Road 41 south of Mancos
PAX 2013 LTD, a Texas limited partnership, is suing the county in a dispute over the proper width and easement status of Road 41.
The Texas partnership sought an injunction to prevent county maintenance on the road while the case goes to trial. A temporary restraining order was lifted in March, and PAX appealed the decision and sought the injunction, but it was denied May 22 allowing county maintenance to continue. The case is set for trial and a readiness hearing is set for Nov. 12.
The county claims a 60-foot right of way, but Nicholas Hawkes, director of operations for PAX 2013 Ltd., and corporation lawyer Geoffrey Craig claim the historic width of the route is limited from 12 to 20 feet. The order denying the injunction does not represent a final determination in the case, which will proceed to a trial.
Reader Comments