187th District judge sets bonds, treatment conditions for several defendants

SAN ANTONIO — Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court set bonds and ordered treatment and supervision conditions for multiple defendants during a crowded criminal docket.

The orders affect defendants including Robredo Matei and Ashley Peele and included money bonds, residential conditions and treatment requirements.

Judge Boyd set a $15,000 bond on an evading-arrest charge and $10,000 on an unauthorized-use charge for Robredo Matei and required him to reside at New Direction, 1139 Gembler Road, San Antonio, 78210, submit to regular urine analyses and to be referred to the Center for Healthcare Services. "So I'm gonna have you reside there, and then I'm going to add, regular UAs and a referral to Center for Healthcare Services, and I'll do, 90 sober meetings in 90 days," Boyd said on the record.

For Ashley Peele, Boyd set bond at $20,000 and ordered regular UAs, intensive outpatient substance-abuse treatment and a referral to the Center for Healthcare Services. "The court is going to set the bond at $20,000 there's going to be regular UAs, intensive outpatient treatment, And that will be for, substance abuse and a referral to Center for Healthcare Services," Boyd said.

The court regularly required residential placements or reporting addresses as a condition of release. In Matei's case the judge explicitly identified the residence: "1139 Gembler Road ... 78210 in San Antonio," and tied supervision conditions to that placement.

Several bond settings were recorded as agreed by the State and defense counsel or set by the court after discussion on the record. In other docket matters the court noted prior bond history as the basis for resetting bond — for example, Matei's earlier $15,000/$10,000 bonds had been removed after an affidavit of surrender by a surety and the court set new bonds consistent with defense requests and the parties' positions.

Many of the release conditions the court ordered included alcohol- and drug-monitoring (regular UAs), mandated treatment (intensive outpatient or program-specific referrals) and participation in sober‑meeting counts (court-ordered meeting quotas). The court also set court dates for follow-up and directed counsel and clerks to ensure records and copies of orders were provided to parties.

The orders at the hearing make compliance with treatment and residence conditions a precondition to continued release; if defendants do not comply the court may revisit bond and supervision terms on later docket dates.

Court clerks notified parties of return dates the judge set for follow-up on treatment placement and compliance. Several defendants were recalled to later dates (June 2 and June 23 were referenced repeatedly) to allow behavioral-health providers to evaluate or to complete discovery and plea-related paperwork.

The court's orders are case‑specific and reflect the judge's exercise of judicial authority over pretrial release conditions; no legislative or systemic policy changes were proposed during the docket.

Notes: Addresses and program names were taken from statements on the record, including the judge's recitation of "1139 Gembler Road" and the program name "New Direction."