Judge denies GPS-removal request, accepts pleas and sentences during busy criminal docket

The court opened a busy criminal docket on June 8 and handled a mix of procedural matters, pleas and sentences.

The judge denied a defense motion to remove GPS monitoring for a newly indicted defendant in 2026 CR07271, saying the state had objected on public-safety grounds and ordering tracking to remain in place with no contact allowed with the complainant. The court also waived certain fees in that matter and set the case for jury selection that afternoon. Prosecutor Ashley Jones and defense counsel Charles Bunk argued the motion before the ruling.

Separately, the court issued a judge’s warrant and remanded Francisco Hernandez without bond after he failed to answer the docket, court staff said.

The court accepted a no‑contest plea from Carlos Javier Aridondo in 2025 CR013471. The state proceeded on a lesser‑included offense of attempted harassment of a public servant; Aridondo waived reading of the indictment, stipulated to the state’s exhibits and was found guilty. The judge sentenced Aridondo to one year in a state jail facility, credited any time served and imposed a $1,000 fine.

In 2025 CR5530, Chris Cervantes pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated, second offense. The court accepted stipulated evidence and imposed a set of conditions that the judge described on the record: a $2,000 fine probated; 60 days in the county jail as a condition; 30 days of electronic monitoring (partial and limited for employment); a TAP evaluation with follow-up treatment per recommendations; ignition interlock for the term of supervision; and a two‑year license suspension. The judge also ordered restitution ($60 to the Texas Department of Public Safety) and additional reporting and treatment conditions.

Defense counsel and the court resolved a motion to revoke community supervision for Brandon McCascal by agreement. The court found a violation true on one allegation, denied the state’s revocation motion under the parties’ proposed agreement, and adopted concurrent terms with a related case; the court added standard conditions including a no‑contact requirement with the named complainant.

Throughout the morning the judge set numerous plea‑deadline reset dates and short continuances to allow defense counsel to review newly uploaded discovery, including full phone extractions and body‑camera footage. The court repeatedly directed counsel to confer, to provide probation and court staff with documentation of completed evaluations or CPS safety plans, and to return on scheduled reset or trial dates.

The court recessed for a midday break and instructed waiting defendants and counsel to be mindful of appearances and appointments for the afternoon calendar.

Why this matters: Several contested pretrial supervision terms — notably the GPS‑tracking decision — affect whether a defendant remains under strict location monitoring pending trial, and the day’s plea acceptances and sentences change the status of multiple cases on the court calendar. The court’s scheduling orders and requests for documentation also affect defendants’ immediate custody and compliance obligations.

The docket continues to manage discovery gaps and trial scheduling; the court set numerous return dates (commonly 30–45 day plea deadlines) and confirmed jury‑selection plans for indicted cases later the same day.