Judge Raquel West SHUTS HIM DOWN: ‘That’s Not a Mistake — That’s Murder
The sentencing hearing before Judge Raquel West was not loud, theatrical, or chaotic, yet it was one of the most emotionally charged courtroom moments imaginable. In a case involving the brutal shooting death of Leroy Smith, the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence after Augusta Simon pled guilty to first-degree felony murder. What unfolded was a sobering reminder that the justice system draws a sharp line between human error and irreversible violence, and that language matters when lives are taken.
From the outset, the court established the gravity of the proceedings. Mr. Simon had already entered a guilty plea to first-degree felony murder, with an agreed sentencing cap of 40 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Judge West confirmed that she had reviewed the presentence investigation report, multiple letters submitted on Mr. Simon’s behalf, and a packet of jail incident reports documenting his conduct while incarcerated. This foundation signaled that the court intended to consider not only the crime itself, but the defendant’s character before and after the offense.
The prosecution began by calling Jaylen Morris, an eyewitness who was present during the early morning hours of September 9, 2023, outside a newly reopened lounge. Her testimony was clear, detailed, and devastating. She described a crowded night, a friendly atmosphere, and Leroy Smith behaving exactly as those who loved him later described: calm, sociable, and unproblematic. According to her account, there were no arguments, no confrontations, and no warning signs.
Ms. Morris testified that as she and Leroy Smith walked through an alley toward the parking area, a man approached them. There was no exchange of words. No argument. No provocation. The man raised a firearm and shot Leroy Smith at point-blank range. The shooter did not fire randomly into the crowd, nor did he appear confused about his target. The gunshots were deliberate and directed solely at Leroy Smith.
Her testimony emphasized proximity and intent. The shooter was so close that it felt as though his hand was on Leroy’s chest. Leroy collapsed after the final shots. Ms. Morris froze in shock, later running to seek help as police arrived on the scene. She stated unequivocally that Leroy did not recognize the shooter, did not expect the encounter, and did nothing to provoke the attack.
On cross-examination, the defense attempted to introduce the idea that there may have been words exchanged inside the club, possibly involving a prior family tragedy connected to the shooter. Ms. Morris rejected this entirely. She testified she heard nothing of the sort and maintained that the shooting was sudden, targeted, and unprovoked. Her account reinforced the prosecution’s position that this was not a spontaneous altercation but a deliberate act.
The emotional weight of the hearing deepened as the court heard from Christy Thomas, Leroy Smith’s mother. Her testimony shifted the focus from the moment of violence to the lasting consequences. She described Leroy as her firstborn child, a loving father of six, a hardworking man balancing school, employment, and a small business. She painted a picture of a gentle soul who avoided conflict and chose peace over confrontation.
Ms. Thomas spoke not in anger, but in grief. She described the daily reality of loss, the impact on Leroy’s children who struggle with nightmares and confusion, and the permanent absence left in their family. Her words reminded the court that homicide does not end with a single victim. It ripples outward, affecting parents, siblings, children, and entire communities for generations.
The testimony of Leroy’s sister further reinforced this reality. She described growing up alongside her brother, watching him lead by example, and losing not just a sibling but a lifelong source of guidance and motivation. As a law enforcement officer herself, she spoke of the painful irony that her brother was not alive to witness her professional achievements. Her testimony underscored the idea that Leroy Smith’s life was still unfolding, filled with promise and responsibility, before it was violently taken.
When Augusta Simon finally took the stand, the tone of the hearing shifted again. He acknowledged his guilty plea and accepted responsibility for the offense. Throughout his testimony, he repeatedly referred to the shooting as a “mistake.” He apologized to the family and expressed remorse, asking for forgiveness and stating that he wished events had turned out differently.
At first glance, his words mirrored those often heard in sentencing hearings: regret, apology, acknowledgment. However, as Judge West later demonstrated, the framing of responsibility matters. Calling the shooting a “mistake” became the focal point of the court’s most defining moment.
During questioning, it emerged that Mr. Simon had accumulated multiple disciplinary write-ups while incarcerated. These included fighting, disobeying guards, and refusing to follow basic jail directives. When asked about these incidents, he attributed his behavior to stress, anger, and difficulty coping. He acknowledged being diagnosed with anger issues after incarceration and taking medication to manage them.
The prosecution pressed him on accountability. He admitted knowing right from wrong. He admitted understanding the impact of his actions on Leroy Smith’s family. He admitted that carrying a firearm and using it was the worst decision he had ever made. Still, he continued to describe the killing as a mistake.
That was when Judge Raquel West intervened.
In a calm but unmistakably firm tone, Judge West explained what the word “mistake” means in the context of everyday life. She gave a simple, relatable example: a car accident caused by misjudgment. A teenager backing into a parked truck. An unintended error without malicious intent. Then she drew a clear, unyielding distinction.
A mistake, she explained, is not pulling out a gun and shooting an unarmed man who has done nothing to provoke you. That is not a mistake. That is murder.
Her words cut through the courtroom with surgical precision. There was no shouting, no grandstanding, no emotional excess. Just a factual, moral, and legal clarification. Judge West emphasized that these two concepts may start with the same letter, but they are fundamentally different. One involves human error. The other involves an intentional act that permanently ends a life.
She pushed Mr. Simon to consider the implications of his language. If someone had shot his own child, would he accept it being dismissed as a mistake? Would learning from it be enough? Would forgiveness erase the harm? Her questioning exposed the inadequacy of minimizing language when dealing with irreversible consequences.
Judge West also addressed Mr. Simon’s conduct while incarcerated. She noted his repeated refusal to follow rules and directives, pointing out that respect for authority and self-control are not optional traits, especially for someone facing decades in prison. Her remarks made clear that accountability does not begin and end with a guilty plea; it extends to daily behavior and personal responsibility.
What made this moment so powerful was not cruelty, but clarity. Judge West did not deny Mr. Simon’s humanity, nor did she dismiss his apology outright. Instead, she rejected the narrative that framed the killing as an accident or lapse in judgment. By doing so, she affirmed the value of Leroy Smith’s life and the seriousness of the crime committed against him.
This hearing also illustrated the broader purpose of sentencing. Sentencing is not solely about punishment; it is about truth, acknowledgment, and societal boundaries. The justice system must communicate that certain actions cross lines that cannot be softened by language. Calling murder a mistake blurs that line, and Judge West refused to allow it.
The presence of the victim’s family throughout the hearing reinforced this message. Their testimonies transformed abstract legal terms into human reality. Six children growing up without a father. A mother grieving her firstborn. A sister mourning a lifelong bond. These are not collateral details; they are the heart of why the law treats homicide with the utmost seriousness.
From an SEO perspective, this case resonates because it combines raw human emotion with a defining judicial moment. Judge Raquel West’s words are likely to be remembered not for their harshness, but for their honesty. In an era where public discourse often softens accountability, her refusal to accept euphemisms stands out.
Ultimately, the phrase “That’s not a mistake” became more than a correction. It became a statement of values. It affirmed that intent matters, that choices matter, and that some actions cannot be reframed to ease their weight. For the Smith family, it was a moment of recognition. For the defendant, it was a moment of confrontation. For the public, it was a reminder of what justice demands.
In the end, this was not just a sentencing hearing. It was a lesson in responsibility, language, and the moral clarity that courts are sometimes called upon to provide. Judge Raquel West did not raise her voice, but she shut down a narrative that threatened to diminish the truth. And in doing so, she reminded everyone present that justice begins with calling things by their proper name.
