[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6221821,"mediaKeyId","3611194-0a341cf24ef4eaae4fbbf8ea1d5de678","parentId",3611194,"title","Judge orders remand without bond after defendant fails to appear; state sought bond forfeiture","audioSeconds",8606,"startMs",1217000,"endMs",9823000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3611194-0a341cf24ef4eaae4fbbf8ea1d5de678&start=1217&end=9823","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3611194-0a341cf24ef4eaae4fbbf8ea1d5de678/thumbnail_1217000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6221821/Texas/Judge-orders-remand-without-bond-after-defendant-fails-to-appear-state-sought-bond-forfeiture","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221821-986e2d5397235e6afa3d0eba9e4282fe/orig.mp4?Expires=1770522552&Signature=N1BsAeRrx-FzdfRPIlNYYyThKQ~LmxBl1~sFxlfwABeZKALCYuVbdwJ6gxOTIXvGtBz05y6rYa62nUrMtKvmZZYQxTiTjib2wXGF9MRAmsMewA9lvUSizA0aBVj3x4Ng-FgubxEnufF6np5wQAO24VH4tR7rCKzezht8iuQXW1VHMdWGLNwUHEdqDG4R-zOehiTzTWsdkIPPXc8dI3zkPjd5qD4SZadfGYtcKcK5U8e2vSLfUO9vfFA96Lm3vFEotCrXLWnKbB1nBnIcJZmj4k8hLHFffc~H6YpowLOwR01HAzFjz65fkphj4OczmyxQbkFtVuDnxm3blKGKZ-qEVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-29T17:43:43Z","article","The court granted the state’s request to forfeit bond and remand defendants who failed to answer the docket, telling defense counsel that if a defendant later appears the court may reconsider the remand.

At several calls on the docket the judge announced that scheduled defendants had not made an appearance. In one instance the court called Jason Martinez and the state requested a bond forfeiture because Martinez failed to answer. The judge granted the request and ordered remand without bond, telling counsel the court would reconsider should the defendant later appear in person.

“That will be granted; your client will be remanded without bond. If your client makes an appearance, the court will reconsider,” the prosecutor said on the record when requesting action; the judge adopted that approach on the docket call.

Why it matters: Failing to appear on a scheduled docket can trigger a bond forfeiture and remand. The court emphasized that once a defendant is ordered to appear and does not, deputies may be instructed to bring the defendant into custody, and the court warned defendants and attorneys to heed appearance orders to avoid warrants.

Context and next steps: The court directed deputies to make announcements and gave a short grace period on some matters, but where counsel confirmed no contact with their clients the state’s request for forfeiture and remand was granted. The court recorded that it would reconsider remand if the defendant subsequently appears and the defense can show cause.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","THURS., MAY 29, 2025/JUDGE STEPHANIE BOYD/187TH DISTRICT COURT/MORNING DOCKET","oneSentenceSummary","When defendants failed to answer the docket, the state requested bond forfeiture and the court ordered remand without bond for absent defendants unless they later appear, saying the court would reconsider appearance-based motions.","taxTitle","Judge Stephanie Boyd 187th District, District Court Judges, Judicial, Texas","taxId",66298,"location","Texas","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6221825,"Court pushes discovery and subpoenas after limited responses; juvenile records issue directed to juvenile court",3688,1399000,5087000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3611194-0a341cf24ef4eaae4fbbf8ea1d5de678&start=1399&end=5087","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3611194-0a341cf24ef4eaae4fbbf8ea1d5de678/thumbnail_1399000.jpg","/articles/6221825/Texas/Court-pushes-discovery-and-subpoenas-after-limited-responses-juvenile-records-issue-directed-to-juvenile-court","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221825-ad26a4a55bb7f2fd969fa22576a71498/orig.mp4?Expires=1770522552&Signature=OgaPr9DOJ8EQg4J4EHJZJe4qk3G1~kQrE0WZy1qSlOqDIbipGOh8z78eLb-HeYPRFIJH6jme~6umebTcqGBxX~4YDiHcwQpOgporX1VO22zzkQ~0ywtT5bNVZizc3hLsDKbkgCzh9EjyrZPdSnq~ysvenafjTgTKVXtHC-wPHzlD3j1ZJGcUc4J3ZL1nvGT2riR3f88Y4Tf0GHeuNAD-bNQOH4nrJq6y9hhEdPV9~lrsOnmbPGe6tHBmeE1wiYJ1wc842h0HkQ9DWBTNdPZxvuDPbPe4V5jiq6FLVV7R0ECVaGB~pszVcqMofvyWczv-xkAsJCTrOEqmdCTHlvjLhg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Defense counsel told the court that subpoenas issued to a high school and other entities in an aggravated-assault matter returned incomplete material, and the court set a new discovery date while advising counsel on options to compel production.

At a discovery/status conference the defense said it had issued two rounds of subpoenas and would need a third to obtain photos and disciplinary records it believes are relevant. The prosecutor acknowledged some materials had been produced but not all, and both sides discussed issuing additional subpoenas or filing a motion to compel. Judge Boyd set a hearing for June 23 and warned counsel that if they lacked specific material on that date they should ensure witnesses are subpoenaed to appear; the court said the next setting would become a plea-deadline date unless evidence is shown.

Separately, counsel asked about obtaining juvenile-related materials that might be in juvenile prosecutors’ files. A prosecutor explained that juvenile prosecutor records are governed by the Texas Family Code and are not generally released to defense counsel without the juvenile court’s order. The court cited the family-code provision and directed defense counsel to seek the records from the juvenile court of proper jurisdiction (Judge Shaw in the record) and to subpoena officers or witnesses as needed to establish what should be released.

Why it matters: Defense counsel said some subpoenas returned incomplete responses and that evidence — including school disciplinary records and photos — could be material to trial preparation. The court emphasized the procedural route: subpoena witnesses, file a motion to compel, or seek juvenile records via juvenile court where Family Code protections apply.

What the court ordered and next steps: The court set a new discovery/processing date (June 23) and advised defense to subpoena witnesses or schedule a motion to compel if production was not complete. For juvenile materials the court noted Texas Family Code §58.007 governs access and recommended counsel present any request to the juvenile court for release; the state said its response to a judicial request would depend on the specific motion filed.","Defense attorneys said subpoenas to a high school and other entities were not fully complied with; the judge set a June 23 discovery hearing and directed defense to seek juvenile-records access in juvenile court under Texas Family Code §58.007 where appropriate.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6221829,"Court amends conditions, orders portable alcohol monitor instead of ignition interlock",949,7601000,8550000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3611194-0a341cf24ef4eaae4fbbf8ea1d5de678&start=7601&end=8550","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3611194-0a341cf24ef4eaae4fbbf8ea1d5de678/thumbnail_7601000.jpg","/articles/6221829/Texas/Court-amends-conditions-orders-portable-alcohol-monitor-instead-of-ignition-interlock","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221829-0f407283fe8653e052c3f507ef91d7b2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770522552&Signature=LhVTHawCnSGfyj1P7et6aQmtTxRy0ndXzoEdQoerPzwT5JBniccKnibLTi7T3H6YZw8Ronpm4w3B5vyR8cAw4bnpoyl4jfa2pEasS7WYeiBNrF0cfbO8xzQMxH7VmKhCI9H1IwmKGanY0GeDUBXwKRcaebk~0oeyYozSlW4WEOoIfypW624zO4prMKSL0flAmJGMTYjoPT8SFn64cfccVESQno7-UTopHnOSD3vyjGlu1-vgHWFrlpltSj0RkCxPjHwqQs7mHPudpMKetzYNrWxSazVeMEZ0qYT1Yd97p7-d0N47n5aQGaQZFAVGZHmJGY~mACCAGUOqff9ruApESg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The 187th District Court amended conditions of supervision for Albert Estrada, replacing an ignition-interlock requirement with a portable alcohol-monitoring device that the court ordered to be used in lieu of driving and to require multiple daily tests.

At the compliance hearing the probation officer explained the conflict between work travel and the ignition-interlock testing schedule. The court and parties discussed alternative monitoring technologies, including a wearable monitor and portable devices, and the associated costs. The state and probation recommended a portable device or scram monitor for continuous oversight during travel.

Judge Boyd ordered an amendment: the ignition-interlock condition was changed to require a portable alcohol-monitoring device, with the court specifying testing at least three times daily and an affidavit of non-driving. “The court will alter and amend conditions, to include portable alcohol monitoring device in lieu of ignition interlock,” the judge said. The court also discussed that the defendant could not be employed in positions involving unsupervised contact with minors until conditions were clarified and complied with.

Why it matters: The change shifts monitoring technology to accommodate the defendant’s work travel while maintaining daily oversight. Probation told the court the defendant had been submitting negative breath tests on return and had complied with other conditions, but daily monitoring while traveling was the court’s priority.

Details and costs: The parties discussed a portable watch-type device and a roughly $5-per-day charge cited in court for some monitoring products; probation noted such devices are not yet monitored by probation directly and additional costs may fall to the defendant. The court required a non-driving affidavit to accompany the portable-monitor arrangement where appropriate.

Next steps: The court directed probation to implement the portable-monitor condition and advised counsel to coordinate device procurement and reporting details so monitoring can proceed without disrupting the defendant’s employment obligations.","Judge Stephanie Boyd amended probation conditions to require a portable alcohol-monitoring device in lieu of an ignition interlock for defendant Albert Estrada, and specified testing frequency and non-driving affidavit requirements.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6221832,"Court accepts deferred-adjudication plea, orders treatment and conditions for defendant",434,9868000,10302000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3611194-0a341cf24ef4eaae4fbbf8ea1d5de678&start=9868&end=10302","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3611194-0a341cf24ef4eaae4fbbf8ea1d5de678/thumbnail_9868000.jpg","/articles/6221832/Texas/Court-accepts-deferred-adjudication-plea-orders-treatment-and-conditions-for-defendant","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221832-d4f682368844202fe497da32fed6d98d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770522552&Signature=jMJdfHVQkE0ez8oyVAK7EJz~EaqfuMmJEH~pTyhdl0y6pkbB50b1DEksEde3b7smwCYbFc-9YvP1bslLj5hT9Tb2wiwqg7GPdox~c1Tp~-iQqQk-qT6OlS2-7Omc5der7AP8kFD--LORvbWQb~jI6p1fQDa-yWnA1k9iz32G225iIQAeg895n1dhNxTsHXQXAcwZOFGmriTu901F33u2SmAYbvPtN~hvZHRzaBcy5YFvr8PTy552jc-g1HIOSCpM0c6vWnpN8lP~EPm6uYSWvDySNYIRkDixH9IoVk2nbuU48a73MRdX62Q6aHgsRqDNgqkMtRVMahqmbq58GoE0pw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Judge Stephanie Boyd accepted a plea of no contest from Luis Espinosa and deferred a finding of guilt, imposing a mix of supervision and rehabilitative conditions including a $1,500 fine and a felony-drug-court referral.

At the hearing the state tendered evidence and Espinosa waived live testimony and a jury. The court accepted the stipulation and, finding sufficient evidence, deferred adjudication rather than entering a conviction. The plea included an affirmative finding of family violence.

The court’s sentence and conditions include a $1,500 fine (probated), three years of deferred adjudication, 100 hours of community service or restitution, mandated parenting classes, a TAP evaluation and referral to felony drug court, regular reporting by Zoom or in person, and random urinalysis. The judge also ordered no contact with the complainant and an affirmative finding that prohibits possession of weapons.

State prosecutor Rick Payne confirmed the plea agreement and the state’s recommendation for deferred adjudication. The court confirmed Espinosa understood the rights he waived by pleading and that the plea and sentencing terms were voluntarily entered. The judge admonished the defendant about the consequences of revocation and the possible prison exposure if deferred adjudication were later revoked.

Why it matters: Deferred adjudication leaves the defendant under court supervision with rehabilitative conditions rather than a conviction, but an affirmative finding of family violence carries collateral consequences, including weapon restrictions and limits on custodial designations.

Process and next steps: The court accepted the stipulation of testimony in evidence and proceeded immediately to sentencing. The defendant was ordered to complete the recommended evaluations and classes; probation will monitor compliance. The court recorded that victim impact statements were heard and that the defendant should not contact the complainant.","The court accepted a plea of no contest from Luis Espinosa and placed him on deferred adjudication with conditions including a $1,500 fine, parenting classes, drug-court referral and an affirmative finding of family violence.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6221834,"Judge removes GPS requirement after nearly 14 months on monitoring",400,2403000,2803000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3611194-0a341cf24ef4eaae4fbbf8ea1d5de678&start=2403&end=2803","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3611194-0a341cf24ef4eaae4fbbf8ea1d5de678/thumbnail_2403000.jpg","/articles/6221834/Texas/Judge-removes-GPS-requirement-after-nearly-14-months-on-monitoring","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221834-2b42c9c07c7aa2c55a207eebe0b727ae/orig.mp4?Expires=1770522552&Signature=Y6WVLOQcl8UjUBS8qtEvqAFzIHl~rKd0XxlO-fyJhrLt3gIYSIgA0igXnpBXA7OMEkplGtnGhvFLKEWDrtGEedyUc7dB7M8xBXbnuitR1ptLWXeyW4CbBcCiFAyjkRIhF6vo7ehGB3~S9SZnWLO59pcHSLDL4Wk~sj1wfViJDNr8QF8tM4rrz35hlR1LksZ43nIMXG3KNiAJ7313zrGC5IY7-BEFKfGFqi5eXXzMHhN~SzF7uNZQDkaWmOmFXqF0kOq8QoBEqbsjHub0dRsTpN3hlqzsiV5UtbNeLVlX85IGhCWPJcBbsIqdOznB1DyvFFcAIcjqsun4X0KrFENl3g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court ordered the removal of electronic GPS monitoring for Nicholas Corpus, who had been tracked since late 2023, after hearing that probation reported no violations and the state had not moved the related case to indictment.

The court removed the GPS after attorneys and probation described Corpus’s lengthy monitoring and the state raised victim-safety concerns. Probation told the court Corpus had complied with conditions and had “not had any problems whatsoever.” The state opposed removal, citing safety concerns raised by the complainant and a June 2024 domestic-protection order and telling the court it objected to lifting monitoring without movement on related charges.

“The court is not gonna do it,” Judge Boyd said when weighing the competing positions, adding that the defendant had been on GPS for an extended period and that keeping him in “limbo” while a separate investigation remains unresolved was inappropriate. “He’s been on GPS since November 2023, and he has had no violations,” the judge said. “I don’t see any reason why GPS should not be removed.”

Why it matters: Corpus had been on GPS tracking roughly 14 months, a period the judge described as unusually long without indictment or other case progression. Probation officials said the defendant had complied with terms and had negative compliance records, and the court cited the lack of formal charges as a reason not to continue indefinite monitoring.

What the court ordered and next steps: The judge removed the GPS condition and instructed counsel to ensure any related motions were in the record. The court noted that if credible evidence later shows the defendant or third parties contacted the complainant, probation could seek revocation; the judge explained that such contact would be a probation violation with significant consequences. Probation and defense counsel were asked to make sure the court had the filed motion and documentation to sign off on the administrative removal and to return to court later if early termination is sought.

Context from the hearing: Defense counsel said Corpus had been a “model probationer” with no violations. The state pointed to the complainant’s expressed safety concerns and to reports it had received, describing some information as hearsay, and asked the court to consider the complainant’s position. The judge repeatedly urged the state to move the matter through grand-jury or indictment processes if it intended to pursue charges, saying it was not fair to leave either party in indefinite limbo.

The court set no new supervisory monitoring condition in place at the hearing; probation indicated it would provide documentation for the court’s file and that a follow-up for early termination could be scheduled later if appropriate.","Judge Stephanie Boyd ordered removal of electronic GPS monitoring for defendant Nicholas Corpus, saying the case had stalled while probation reported no violations and the state had not advanced charges for indictment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judge orders remand without bond after defendant fails to appear; state sought bond forfeiture

Court pushes discovery and subpoenas after limited responses; juvenile records issue directed to juvenile court

Court amends conditions, orders portable alcohol monitor instead of ignition interlock

Court accepts deferred-adjudication plea, orders treatment and conditions for defendant

Judge removes GPS requirement after nearly 14 months on monitoring