On Thursday, August 14, 2025, the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished Horizon City Municipal Court Judge Mario Gonzalez for actions related to his involvement in bail reform discussions. The decision followed a review of allegations against Gonzalez during the commission’s meeting on August 6-7, 2025, where he appeared and provided testimony.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Judge Mario Gonzalez,” with case number 22-0998.

Gonzalez, who also serves as a municipal court judge for San Elizario and Clint, was found to have engaged in conduct that violated several provisions of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. The commission’s findings centered on his dual roles as a judge and an attorney representing clients in the surety bond industry, including bail bondsman Pascual Olibas.

The commission determined that Gonzalez used his judicial title during a 2020 television interview with ABC-7 in El Paso, where he was identified as Horizon City’s municipal court judge. In the interview, he criticized personal recognizance bonds, stating that their use led to increased crime by repeat offenders, which aligned with the interests of his bail bond clients.

Additionally, on February 16, 2022, Gonzalez attended a meeting organized by the El Paso Senate Bill Committee to discuss compliance with Senate Bill 6, known as the Damon Allen Act, which reforms bail processes. The meeting’s agenda included discussions on jail magistrate guidelines, and Gonzalez was listed as representing municipal judges from Horizon and San Elizario.

During the meeting, Gonzalez criticized the frequent issuance of personal recognizance bonds by El Paso County Jail Magistrate Court judges and supported Olibas’s proposal that magistrates delay bond decisions for 48 hours to allow bonding companies to engage with defendants.

A complaint filed by former El Paso Jail Magistrate Court Presiding Judge Penny Hamilton alleged that Gonzalez leveraged his judicial position to promote the financial interests of his bail bond clients. Hamilton claimed his actions lent undue credibility to the bail bond industry’s agenda, potentially conflicting with statutory and constitutional bail requirements.

Another attendee, Patricia Lopez, corroborated that Gonzalez openly opposed bail reform measures, particularly the high number of personal recognizance bonds, which impacted his clients’ businesses.

In written responses to the commission, Gonzalez expressed regret for the perception that his advocacy as an attorney was intertwined with his judicial role. He committed to taking steps to clearly separate his roles as a judge and attorney in the future to avoid any appearance of impartiality. During his testimony before the commission, he clarified that he attended the 2022 meeting as an attorney, not in his judicial capacity.

The commission concluded that Gonzalez’s actions violated multiple canons of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, including lending the prestige of his judicial office to advance private interests, engaging in activities that cast doubt on his impartiality, and participating in business dealings that reflected adversely on his judicial role.

The public admonition was issued under the authority of Article V, Section 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution to uphold judicial standards and public confidence in the judiciary.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.