Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court accepted a negotiated plea from Alfred Gonzalez and imposed suspended prison sentences and probation terms across multiple felony cause numbers on the court docket.

The plea and sentencing matter concerned several consolidated cases including 2025CR012008, 2025CR005205, 2025CR005206, 2025CR007396, 2025CR007397, 2025CR007487, 2025CR007488, 2025CR007406, 2025CR009170 and 2025CR009295. The court imposed largely concurrent sentences and specific probation conditions, and set restitution review dates for some cases.

Why it matters: The court’s actions resolve a cluster of property-related felony charges against one defendant and establish probation terms, restitution procedures and a short jail condition that govern Gonzalez’s supervision and potential compliance obligations going forward.

Judge Boyd found that Gonzalez knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights to indictment and a jury trial and accepted stipulated evidence presented by the state before entering findings of guilt.

The court sentenced Gonzalez in multiple causes, most commonly to 10 years in prison suspended and probated for 10 years, with a $1,000 fine to be probated. Conditions across the cases included regular reporting by Zoom or in person, random urine analyses, proof of employment within 45 days, monthly field visits for an initial period, and prohibitions on employment as a home health care provider or in positions involving minors unless the court grants approval. The court ordered no driving without prior court approval in several causes.

The court imposed community-service restitution of 150 hours in some causes, with specified portions able to be satisfied by completion of parenting or anti-theft classes: in some announcements the court said 50 hours would be satisfied upon completion of parenting classes and other portions would be satisfied upon completion of MRT and an anti-theft course. In one cause, 2025CR005205, the court recorded a $500 restitution requirement payable to Elizabeth Mascaro and directed the defendant to provide a money order for that amount; the defendant was told to bring the money order to the district attorney’s office.

Judge Boyd ordered a short local jail term as a condition of probation in several causes: 10 days in the Bexar County Jail to begin no later than Oct. 10, 2025, with the defendant required to turn himself in by 5 p.m. that day. The court also set a restitution hearing/reset date of Oct. 30, 2025, for some causes to allow victims to verify amounts.

Defense counsel told the court Gonzalez had been liquidating assets and said Gonzalez was prepared to provide $5,000 toward restitution, subject to verification by complainants. "He has informed us he's in position to provide $5,000, in restitution," defense counsel said. Counsel asked the court to consider Gonzalez’s employment efforts and personal circumstances in sentencing.

Judge Boyd addressed the defendant directly from the bench, emphasizing consequences and expectations: "If everybody who had some sort of issue where they lost their job or something didn't go their way, if they decided, you know what? I'm just gonna throw my hands up and I'm gonna start committing crimes, then where will we be? We will be in the world of Mad Max, and this is The United States and you're not allowed to do that." The judge concluded by warning Gonzalez to weigh the risk of incarceration before committing further offenses.

The court also reiterated that because the plea bargain included a waiver of appeal, Gonzalez did not have the court’s permission to appeal the convictions; the judge reminded him that, as a felony conviction, he may not possess weapons or ammunition.

Procedural next steps and practical details: the court consolidated many of the sentencing conditions to run concurrently across the listed causes, requested that victim restitution amounts be verified by complainants, and directed court staff to prepare reset forms and restitution hearings where appropriate. The court required that when restitution amounts are claimed by victims they be supported by documentary evidence (money orders) and scheduled a follow-up restitution hearing on Oct. 30 for those matters.

Ending: The court’s pronouncements resolve the immediate plea and sentencing phase but leave restoration of specific restitution amounts contingent on victim verification and the scheduled hearing later in October.