A man who pleaded guilty to burglarizing the home of Houston Astros player Jose Altuve cut off his ankle monitor before he could return to court to be sentenced, and he has been a wanted fugitive ever since. The case has drawn renewed attention because, while two of the men involved in the break-in are now serving long prison terms, the accomplice who removed his monitor has avoided punishment entirely by simply disappearing.
The burglary itself dates back to March 30, 2023, when intruders broke into Altuve's home. Two of the men connected to that break-in, 27-year-old Patrick Maxey and 28-year-old William Jones, pleaded guilty to the crime. They were each sentenced to lengthy terms behind bars, with one receiving 25 years in prison and the other 22 years for their roles in the theft.
Their accomplice, Jordan Tarniella, also pleaded guilty last year to his part in the burglary. Unlike the other two, however, Tarniella is not in prison. Before a judge could formally sentence him, he removed the ankle monitor he was required to wear and vanished, and he has been listed as a wanted fugitive since May of last year.
Court records show that Tarniella had a history of repeatedly violating the conditions of his bond. Even so, after he entered his guilty plea, a judge in Harris County's 184th criminal court, Catherine Thomas, allowed him to remain free on bond with an ankle monitor rather than ordering him into custody to await sentencing, a decision that ultimately gave him the opportunity to flee.
Critics of how the case was handled point out that there appeared to be no public alert once he disappeared. There was no warning issued through the media that he was wanted, and no broad notice that a man who had already admitted his guilt in a high-profile burglary was on the run, leaving the public unaware that he was at large.
Observers have also questioned the inconsistency in how the system treats defendants. When a person is tried before a jury, found guilty and is out on bond, that person is typically taken into custody on the spot. The unanswered question being raised is why the same standard is not applied when someone who is already out on bond pleads guilty, rather than allowing them to walk back out the door.