Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court granted a probation request to terminate Zachary Alexander Gilmore’s misdemeanor probation early, saying the court found he had completed required programming and “internalized” his treatment, even though the victim objected and asked that he serve the full two-year term.

The court heard from the prosecutor that the underlying felony had been reduced to a misdemeanor in plea negotiations because of concerns about the complainant’s testimony. Probation told the court it had submitted a status report and recommended early termination, and the report stated Gilmore had completed conditions and received a certificate from a batterer-intervention program (BIP). The victim did not appear in court and had asked the state to voice her objection; the victim’s representative told the court she opposed early termination and wanted Gilmore to remain on probation for the full two years.

Judge Boyd asked whether the reduction to a misdemeanor was a benefit the defendant had already received; the court said reductions do not by themselves bar an early termination if the defendant has been rehabilitated. After reviewing the probation report and the BIP certificate, Boyd found Gilmore had accepted responsibility and had met probation requirements.

The court granted probation’s motion for early termination. As conditions of the ruling, Judge Boyd made an affirmative finding of family violence part of the record, ordered lifetime restrictions on firearm possession stemming from that finding, and prohibited any contact with the complainant. The court explicitly told Gilmore that the affirmative finding would remain on his record and that he must not own or possess weapons.

The transcript shows the probation placement date was recorded in the court synopsis as 2024-07-01; probation represented that Gilmore had been compliant since that placement. The court’s order was based on the probation report the judge reviewed in open court. No additional fines, restitution, or other penalties were announced in the hearing segment reporting the early-termination decision.

The court’s order resolved the pending probation-termination request; the court did not vacate the affirmative finding of family violence and imposed ongoing prohibitions tied to that finding.