Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00433-CR

EX PARTE Edwin OLIVA-GOMEZ

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12467CR

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 3, 2024

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

DENIED

Appellant, Edwin Oliva-Gomez, appeals from the denial of his pretrial application for writ

of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, treat the appeal as a petition for 

writ of mandamus at Oliva-Gomez’s request, and deny his mandamus petition.

BACKGROUND

Oliva-Gomez, a noncitizen, was arrested under Operation Lone Star and charged with the 

misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass. On February 21, 2023, Oliva-Gomez filed an 

application for writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the criminal trespass charge because, he 

alleged, the State engaged in selective prosecution, in violation of his right to equal protection, 

when it decided to charge him. On March 25, 2023, the trial court issued an order stating, “the 

Application is denied without issuing writ.” Oliva-Gomez timely filed a notice of appeal.
04-23-00433-CR

- 2 -

On April 5, 2024, we issued an order notifying Oliva-Gomez that it appears we lack 

jurisdiction over this appeal and that we would dismiss this appeal unless he filed a response to 

our order showing that we have jurisdiction. 

Oliva-Gomez filed a response on April 11, 2024, in which he argues that the trial court’s 

“order is appealable.” Oliva-Gomez also requests, in the event we determine that we lack 

jurisdiction over his appeal, that we treat his appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus. 

JURISDICTION

There is no right to an appeal when a trial court refuses to issue a habeas writ or dismisses 

or denies a habeas application without ruling on the merits of the applicant’s claims. See Ex parte 

Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Ex parte Molina Valencia, — S.W.3d 

—, No. 04-23-01044-CR, 2024 WL 1642923, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio April 17, 2024, no 

pet. h.) (en banc). “Thus, where the record does not show that the trial court ruled on the merits of 

the application for writ of habeas corpus, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.” Molina Valencia, 

2024 WL 1642923, at *1 (quoting Ex parte Blunston, No. 04-12-00657-CV, 2013 WL 3874471, 

at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 24, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); 

citing Ex parte Bowers, 36 S.W.3d 926, 927 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. ref’d); Ex parte Miller, 

931 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, no pet.)).

Here, the trial court did not issue a writ, and the trial court’s order simply states that “the 

Application is denied without issuing writ”—language we have previously held does not suggest 

a ruling on the merits. E.g., id. at *2 (citing In re Martinez-Jimenez, No. 04-23-00547-CR, 2023 

WL 7005866, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 25, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication); In re Lara Belmontes, 675 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 

2023, orig. proceeding)). Further, no reporter’s record has been filed, and nothing in the record 
04-23-00433-CR

- 3 -

shows that the trial court held any hearings related to Oliva-Gomez’s habeas application or the 

merits thereof or otherwise considered any evidence related to the application.

Consequently, nothing in our review of the entire record reflects that the trial court 

considered or expressed an opinion on the merits of Oliva-Gomez’s habeas claims.1 See id.; Ex 

parte Garcia, 683 S.W.3d 467, 473 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, no pet.) (en banc). We 

therefore conclude that the trial court did not rule on the merits of Oliva-Gomez’s habeas 

application, and we lack jurisdiction to review his appeal. See Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d at 394; 

Molina Valencia, 2024 WL 1642923, at *2; Garcia, 683 S.W.3d at 473.

REQUEST TO TREAT HABEAS APPEAL AS A MANDAMUS PETITION

We may, in certain circumstances, treat an appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus, if 

specifically requested to do so by the appellant. See Molina Valencia, 2024 WL 1642923, at *2. 

As stated above, Oliva-Gomez specifically requests that we construe his appeal as a mandamus 

petition if we determine the trial court’s order is not appealable. We will therefore treat OlivaGomez’s appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus. 

After considering the petition and the record, we deny Oliva-Gomez’s request for 

mandamus relief. See id. at *2–4.

1 Oliva-Gomez argues in his appellate brief that the trial judge held a hearing and heard testimony on an identical 

claim in another case in a different county and that the hearing in the other case “likely informed her denial in this 

case.” Similarly, Oliva-Gomez argues in his April 11, 2024 response to our April 5, 2024 order that the trial court’s 

“order is appealable because . . . the lower court has previously considered the merits of the exact same claim dozens 

of times in other Operation Lone Star cases.” We, however, “may not consider factual assertions that are outside the 

record.” Whitehead v. State, 130 S.W.3d 866, 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); see Janecka v. State, 937 S.W.2d 456, 476 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (“It is a long standing principle that we cannot review contentions which depend upon factual 

assertions outside of the record.”). Nor may we consider evidence from the record of another case, unless we take 

judicial notice of our own records from “the same or related proceedings involving same or nearly same parties.” 

Turner v. State, 733 S.W.2d 218, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Therefore, we may not consider the records from other 

cases in determining whether the trial court ruled on the merits of Oliva-Gomez’s habeas application in this case.
04-23-00433-CR

- 4 -

CONCLUSION

Because the trial court’s denial of Oliva-Gomez’s habeas application was not based on the 

merits, we lack jurisdiction to review his habeas appeal. We therefore dismiss his appeal for want 

of jurisdiction and, at Oliva-Gomez’s request, treat his appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus. 

Finally, we deny without prejudice Oliva-Gomez’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH