Judge Reinstates $10,000 Bond for David Escobedo, Orders Ignition Interlock and Sobriety Conditions

A judge in the 180th District Court in Bexar County set David Escobedo’s bond at $10,000 and imposed conditions intended to reduce reoffending, including an ignition interlock requirement and a sobriety condition. The court directed that Escobedo complete 30 sober meetings in 30 days and required ignition interlock on any vehicle to which he has access.

The judge said the court reviewed a filed motion to reinstate bond and would “set the bond at $10,000,” adding that “there should be ignition interlock on any vehicle the defendant has access to.” The judge also said, “There’s going to be 30 sober meetings in 30 days.”

Prosecutors told the court they believed a prior increase in bond to $20,000 had been entered by another judge, then reduced after compliance with ignition‑interlock conditions. The state said it would recommend doubling bond if a future revocation occurred but accepted the court’s decision to return bond to $10,000 for now.

Defense counsel indicated the bond company was prepared to post new paperwork to restore the prior bond amount and asked the court to set the bond at the previous level while the company filed paperwork. Court staff checked the electronic case record (Odyssey) to confirm which bond amount had been posted, and the court tasked the clerk with confirming whether Escobedo had made bond at $10,000 or $20,000.

The court’s order included behavioral conditions in addition to ignition interlock and sober meetings; counsel and the court discussed setting a plea deadline and discovery deadlines and scheduled a three‑week plea deadline for the associated matter. The transcript records the court’s explicit statement that it expected no further disruptions from the defendant as a condition of reinstating the lower bond.

The judge also explained that if a revocation event occurred the state would seek to increase bond, but at the current hearing the court reinstated the $10,000 bond and imposed the listed monitoring and program requirements.

The bond restoration and conditions were entered during arraignment/docket call proceedings and are reflected in the court’s minutes; no jury verdicts or contested evidentiary rulings were reached on the underlying charges at this hearing.

The court did not specify an exact enforcement mechanism for the sober‑meeting condition beyond making it part of the bond and pretrial requirements; defense counsel was given the opportunity to follow up on paperwork and discovery matters.

The bond and conditions remain subject to further motion practice if the parties or the bond company provide additional records or if the state moves for revocation or an increase.