Judge removes GPS requirement after nearly 14 months on monitoring

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.