## C OU R T O F A PPEA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
NUM BER 13-07- 0052 9-CR A M BER L OVIL L, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.

NUM BER 13-07- 0066 8-CR EX PA RTE: A M BER LOVILL
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 8th D istrict Co urt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

Opin ion b y

Ju stice B en av ide s This ca se inv olv es a c lai m of sel ect iv e pro se cu ti o n bas ed on g ender

. Appel lan t, Am ber Lo v ill, arg ues th at th e Nuece s Co u n t y Distri ct Atto rney’s Of f ice selectively prosec uted her , seek ing to re v oke her probati on and to i ncarcerate h er i n a d ru g -t re atmentT he i ndi ct m ent was en t er ed a s t r i al cour t cause num ber 01- C R
- 3725- A, i n t he 2 8t h Di st r i ct C our t of 1 N ueces C ount y , T exas. 2 facil ity bec ause she w as usi ng dr ug s d ur ing her preg nancy . In c ause number 13- 07- 529- CR , Lov il l appeal s t he tr ial co urt’ s o rd er modi fyi ng her probati on and impos ing sa nct ion s for v iol ati ng the ter ms of her probati on. In caus e number 13-07 -6 68- CR , Lov il l appeal s t he d e n ia l o f h e r p e t it io n f o r

w r i to f h a b e a s co rp u s b a s e d o n t h e sa m e o rd e r. W e h a ve conso lidate d the tw o ap pea ls and con sid e r t h e m t ogethe r. W e dism iss Lovi ll’s direct appeal f ro m the orde r modify ing her probat ion for lack of jur is dicti on. W e rev erse the t ri al
cour t’ s o rd er deny ing her

p e ti ti o n for w ri t of habeas co rp us and remand for further proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

. I. B A CKGRO UND A . Un der ly in g Of

fe nse and Pr ob at ed Sen te nce On N ov ember

15, 2001, Lov il l w as ind ic ted o n tw o count s of felo ny forg er y resul ti ng from ch eck s s he forg ed. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 32.21 (V er non 200 3 & Supp. 1 2008)

. On J anuar

y 10, 2005, Lov il l entered i nto a ple a barg ain w it h the Stat e and pl eaded g uil ty

. I n a c c o rd a n c e w i t h t h e p l e a a g re e me n t , t h e t r i a l c o u rta s s e s s e d a p u n i s h me n tof tw o y ears in stat e jail, a $1, 000 f ine, $ 70 0 i n r e s t it ution , and costs; ho w ever, the cou rt suspe nde d t h e p riso n term and placed Lovil l on com mu nity supe rv ision for three y ears. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.12, § 3 ( Ver non 2006 & Supp. 2008)

. As one of the c ondi ti ons of Lov il l’ s p ro bati on, s he w as re q uired to “ [a]v oid inj ur iou s o r v ic iou s h abi ts and[/]or , av oid the use of alc ohol icbev erag es, narco ti cs or anyother cont ro ll ed s ubst ances a n d s u b mi tt o t e s t i n g / b l o o d a n a l y s i s / u r i n a l y s i s a s d i re c t e d fo r a l c o h o l o r

c o n t ro ll ed subst ance s . . . .” See i d. art. 42. 12, § 1 1(a)(2), (14) (Verno n Sup p. 20 08). Lo v ill w as also orde red to p articipat e in a sub stan ce ab use program, rep ort w eekly to her proba tion o f f icer,3

and t o “ sat is factor il y

par ti ci pate in a s creeni ng /as ses sment for s ubst ance abuse and subm it to any co unse ling, urina ly sis, a nd/ or d iv ersiona ry p rogram as de term ine [sic] w ithin t h e [ Com mu nity Sup erv ision an d Correction s Departm ent(“ CSCD”) ] TRE AT MENT ALT ERNAT IVE T O INCARCERAT ION PROGRAM . . . .” See i d. a rt . 42. 12, § 1 3 ( f) (Verno n Sup p.2 008 ). B. Fi rstM ot io n to R ev oke On Se pte mb er 16, 2005 , the State f iled a m otion to rev oke L ovil l’s probatio n. CSCD filed w it h an “A dul t Probati on Vi ola ti on R epor t” wit h t h e di str ic t attor ney ’s off ic e. The
re por ts all eg es sev eral v iol ati ons of Lov il l’ s p ro bati on: (1 ) On Apr il 15, 2 005 and M ay 19, 2005, Lov il l’ s u ri nalysis t e ste d pos it iv e for amphetami ne; ( 2) Lov il l did not re por t t o her CS CD off ic er

w eekl y dur ing months of Ma y , June, Jul y , and Augus t 2005; (3) Lov il l faile d to pay cos ts, fines, re sti tuti on, and fees; and ( 4) Lov il l faile d to par ti ci pate in a s creeni ng or as ses sment for s ubst ance abuse bec ause on M ay 31, 2005, she w as dis charg ed from Coa sta l Bend O utpat ien t Se rv ic es due t o non- atten dance

. On Febr uar

y 2, 20 06, L ov il l entered anot her pl ea barg ain w it h the Stat e and ple aded true to sev eral of

the cou nts in the mot ion to revo k e . T h e t ri a l court foun d tha t Lovill
v iolate d her prob ation on the coun ts she ad mitt ed, and on Feb ruary 13, 200 6, th e trial court is sued an “ Order

Impos ing Sancti ons on D efend a n t An d Conti nui ng or M odi fyi ng Probati on.” Thi s o rd er

req uired Lov il l to s er

v e a t er m of confine ment and treatment in the Nuece s Count y Sub stan ce Abu se T reatm ent Facility (“SAT F”) for an ind ete rmina te te rm of si x to tw elv e months, and af ter rele ase, to par

ti ci pate in dr ug or

al cohol abus e c onti nuum of care treatment pla n. Lov il l then wen t to SATF and re mained there unt il F ebr uar y 8, 2007.4

C. Seco nd M ot io n to R ev oke On J uly 17, 2007, the S tate filed a s econd m oti on to rev oke Lov il l’ s prob ati on. The moti on al leg ed th at Lo v il l: (1) submi tted a ur ine sa mple that w as posi ti v e for amphetami nes on J uly 10, 2007; (2 ) faile d to re p o rt f o r an office v is iti n J une 200 7; ( 3) failed to atte nd her SAT F af ter-care cl asses; and (4) failed to pay fin es, restitu tion, costs, and fees. O n Aug ust6 an d 7, 2007, at a hear ing on the motion to rev oke, Lov il l admit ted the v iol ati ons all eg ed, a nd th e c our t ac cept ed her

pl eas of tru e. The Stat e cal led Sandra Gar z a to tes ti fy. Gar

z a is a CS CD off ice r fo r Nu eces Co u n t y wh o wa s a ss ign e d to su p e rvise Lo vill a “co u p le of w e e ks ” pr io r to th e he a rin g. Gar z a recommended to t he c our t that Lo v il l be s anct ion ed to the Subs tanc e Abus e F elo ny Pun i s h me n tF a c i l i t y

( “ S A F P F ” ) s p e c i a l n e e d s u n i t

. W h e n a s k e d w h y , G a rz a a n s w e re d, “M s. Lov il l has re lap sed. Sh e has co nti nued us ing dr ug s. On her l ast[ur ina ly si s], sh e w as posi ti v e. She i s p osi ti v e al most three ti mes. The c utoff i s a thou sand, and she sc ored at 3,695 for amphet amine. ” The follo w ing ex chang e then occ ur re d betw een G arz a and the prose cuto r: Q: Y ou s ay

sp eci al needs

. Spec ial needs uni t of S .A.F .P.F

. W hy spec ial needs ? A: Ms . Lov il l is preg nant. Q: She i s c ur re ntl y

preg nant? A: Yes. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion, Lov il l’ s c ounse l ex plo re d the reason thatC SC D soug ht t o re v oke Lov il l’ s p ro bati on: Q: Ms. Ga rza , i f

M s . L o v ill w asn’t p regnant , w ould the pro bat ion, a s a probati on, w oul d y ou hav e c onsi dered rev oki ng her at all ?5

A: W e wou ld need to hav e staffed her had she not been pre g nant, but her bei ng preg nant w as a v er y hi g h c oncer n of ours. Q: So b a sical ly

i t w asn’ t s o much her doi ng dr ug s, itw as the fact that si nce she w as preg nant that y ou filed t h is m o ti on to rev oke, i s t hat cor re ct? A: On some cas es w e hav e w or ked w it h ind iv idu als w ho hav e s ubmitted positive UAs. Q: How

co me y ou w eren’ t w il li ng to w or k w it h M s. Lov il l? A: She’ s p re g nant.

. . . Q: So basica lly , if she had bee n giv en the opp ortun ity to ma ke up th ose [after-c are] c las ses , t here w oul dn’ t hav e been a v iol ati on? A: No. The main— I th in k wha t d ro ve th is viol ati on repor t w as the posi ti v e [ur ina ly si s] and her bei ng preg nant. T he St ate then rested, and Lovil l took the stand

. S he te stif ied th at she w ould like to go to CASA, w hich is an ou tpa tientdrug treatm entfacility . She request ed th at th e cou rt cont inu e her

on p ro bation w it h a s anct ion of CA SA or addi ti onal j ail ti me added to t he probated se n te n ce . S he c lai med thatsh e w anted to g o to outpat ien t t re atment so she coul d k eep t he baby

w it h her

. Her

att or ney then arg ued: It is obv iou s t he probati on w oul d hav e w or ked w it h her , butfor t he fact that she w as preg nant and t hey dec ide to re v oke h e r a n d t hen s end her off to SAF P w it hout ev en g iv ing M s. Lov il l an oppo rt uni ty to may be w or k w it h probati on ev en th oug h s he i s p re g nant. Sh e i s w il li ng to g o t o CASA or some o ther

treat ment faci li ty

that is loc al; so she can hav e her baby and not h a ve to go to pr is on, Y our H onor . She ha d l ik e a y ear l eft or so on h er prob ation , so she would like to try an d f inish ou t her prob ation and put th is case b ehin d her. She und erstan ds tha t tha t w as po or judgme nt in he r case w ith the testing positive fo r amp het a m in e s . In th e alte rnative, if th e Court sees f it t o rev oke her , s he w oul d l ik e to do one y ear and not h av e to g o to SAF P atal l. Co u n s e l fo r t h e S t a t e a rg u e d t h a tL o vil l h a d a se ri o u s d ru g p ro b le m . Sp e c if ic a ll y, the S tate arg ued t hat:I n t he r epor t er ’ s re cor d, t hi s st at em ent i s i ncor r ect l y at t r i but ed t o t he pr osecut or . Bot h par t i es ag r ee 2 t hat t he st at em ent was m ade byLov i l l ’ s coun sel , not t he St at e. 6 notonly is her problem w ith drugs cont inuing to be a dan ger to her, now it is a da nger to her un born child. S he nee ds prop er drug treatm entin a secure env ironment a nd S. A.F .P.F . i s a prog ra m thatw il l prov id e t h at for her

. . . . And al so to g iv e her ti me to address her dr ug probl em and ens ure tha t s he is n o tgo in g t o b e u s in g d ru gs d u ri n g t h e t e rm o f h e r p re gn a n c y. Lov i l l ’ s c o u n s e l t h e n a rg u e d t h a t t h e S t a t e “ w o u l d n o t e v e n h a v e re v o k e d h e r , e v e n w it h the positive UA, but for the fact th at she w as pregnan t; the y w ould have cont inue d to work
w it h her .” Lov il l’ s couns el ask ed that the probati on depa rt ment c onti nue t o w or k w it h her and “g iv e her a chan ce, ” re it erati ng that“ the p ro bati on w oul d hav e w or ked w it h her , butfor the factthatsh e i s p re g nant, they w oul d hav e k ept h er

on p ro bati on.” 2 The tr ial co urt di sag re ed w it h Lov il l’ s c ounse l that the S tate soug ht to r ev oke her probati on bec ause she w as preg nant: “ W ell , I thi nk the fact that she tes ted p osi ti v e i s t he
re ason w e are al l here, r ig ht, not for the fact that she is preg nant. ” On Aug ust13, 2007, the t ri al cour

t i ss ued an “O rd er

Impos ing Sancti ons on D efe n d a n t a nd C onti nui ng or Mo dify ing Probati on.” The c our t extended Lov il l’ s p ro bati on by o n e y ear

so thati t now
ex pires on J anuar

y 10, 2009. The c our

t furt her ordered Lov il l to s er

v e an i ndeter minat e term of three to tw elve mont hs con f inem entand treatm entin SAFPF. C. Lo v ill ’s M ot io n fo r N ew T rial On A ug ust30, 2007, Lov il l filed a mot ion for n ew tr ial, wh ich s he amended on September

5, 2007. Lov il l ass erted t hat t he moti on to rev oke probati on s houl d hav e been dis mis sed becau se she w as sel ect iv ely prosec uted based on h er g ender and in v iol ati on of her ri g ht t o p riva cy. She arg ued t hat t he prosec uti on of the moti on to rev oke v iol ated her r ig hts under

the Due Proces s a nd Eq ual Protec ti on C lause s o f the Four

teent h Amendment of the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on; t he Eq ual R ig hts Amendmentof arti cl e I7

sec ti on 3a of the Tex as Con sti tuti on; a nd th e D ue Proces s C lau se of art ic le I sect ion 19 of the Tex as Con sti tuti on. See U. S. C ON ST . amend. X IV; T EX
. C ON ST
. art. I, §§ 3a, 19. On O cto ber

4, 2007, the tr ial courtheld a hear ing on the motion for newtr ial

. Fi rs t, Lov il l cal led Sandra Gar z a bac k t o the st and. Gar z a tes ti fied th at w hen a v iol ati on of probati on oc curs, the N ueces C ounty C SC D deter mines w hether to p ro ceed w it h a p ro b a t io n re vie w o r t o f il e a “vi o la t io n re p o rt ” wi t h t h e d is t ri c ta t t o r n e y ’ s o f f i c e . Ga rza te st if ie d th a t in a p ro b a ti o n revie w, CSC D sc h e d u le s a n ap p o in tm e n t with th e ju d ge overseeing the case to discuss th e prob lem s w ith a judge. In contrast, if C SCD sends a “vi o la t io n re p o rt ” to t h e d is t ri c t a t t o rn e y’s o f f ic e , “i t t u rn s in t o a m o t io n t o re vo k e . ” G a rza tes ti fied th at t he di str ic t at tor ney ’s off ic e ty pical ly re lie s o n C SC D to repor t probati on
v iol ati ons— itdoes not condu ct it s o w n i nv est ig ati on. Gar z a sta ted that CS CD has dis creti on to s end, or not to s end, a v iol ati on repor t t o t h e d is t ri c ta t t o rn e y’s o f f ic e : “I tis u s u a ll y o n a ca s e -b y-c a s e b a s is

. If a p ro b le m a ri s e s , we sta ff the cas e w it h our super v is or . At that ti me, w e det er mine w hether to proceed w it h a probati on rev iew

or a v iol ati on repor

t.” Gar z a admi tted that the d epar tment has dis creti on to refuse to send a v iol ati on repor t t o the di str ic t attor ney ’s off ic e e ven i f the person on prob ation fails a urinalysis. She testif ied th at CSCD conside rs “ how the perso n is currently doin g at th e time thatthe pro blem is occurring ; w het her it is a positive [urinaly sis] or fa ilure to repor t. W e tak e i nto c onsid e ra ti o n h o w they hav e done in the p ast , any extenuat ing circumsta nces like a p regnancy, stu f f like that; whethe r there are an y new arrests, stu f

f like that. ” Gar

z a the n di sc uss ed Lov il l’ s p re g nancy : Q: W hy

w as her bei ng preg nant a hi g h c oncer n? A: Beca use of the pos it iv e ur ina ly si s that she prov ide d on Jul y 10th

. It8 w a s t h r e e t i me s o v e r

t h e — i tw a s c l o s e t o t h re e t i me s o v e r t h e c u t o ff li mit. Q: In light o f

h e r p re gna n cy , w hat made the hig h ur ina ly si s resul t a conc er n to y ou? A: W ell , w e w ere conc er ned for the baby

. W e w ere conc er ned that she wou ld co n ti n u e us in g. W h e n q u e s t io n e d f u rt h e r a b o u tt h e r e a s o n s fo r s e e k in g t o r e vo k e L o vil l’ s p ro b a t io n , G a rza testif ied as follows: Q: And w hat w as sai d dur ing thatdi sc uss ion about r e a sons for ter minat ing or

req uest ing rev ocat ion of probati on? A: [Gar

z a’s su per

v is ors] took

i nto c onsi derati on th e leve ls on y our p o s i t i v e u r i n a l y s i s . I t w a s mo re t h a n t h re e t i me s t h e c u t o ff a nd th at she w as preg nant. Q: W oul d tha t, acc ordin g to w hat [the super v is ors] sai d to y ou, w oul d tha t v iol ati on report hav e been sentto the D A’ s o ff ic e i f she w ere not preg nant? A: I don’ t know

. W e w oul d hav e to t ake int o c onsi derati on how sh e w as d o in g. If sh e wa s n ’tp re gn a n t , itis p ro b a b le t h a ta re vie w wou ld h a ve been s chedu led , I ’m n ot c ertai n. Q: From your rev iew of t h e c a s e f ile on Au gust 6th, do you beliv e [sic] that her preg nancy

w as a factor that caus ed a moti on to re v oke to be filed ? A: Yes. Q: Do y ou bel iv e [si c], based on the rev iew thaty ou di d i n preparati on for the A ug ust6th hear ing , that a moti on to rev oke w oul d hav e been file d if sh e had not b een preg nant? A: I can’ t—I don’ t know w hether a v iol ati on repor t w oul d hav e been filed ; in a ll li k e li h o o d m a yb e we wo u ld h a ve p ro c e e d e d wit h a re vie w. J.D . Va rg a s, a p ro bati on officer at Nue ces C ounty

C SC D, al so tes ti fied. He w as ass ig ned t o Lov il l’ s c ase from Ma y 29, 2007 un ti l the v iol ati on repor t w as filed

. He tes ti fied that he w or ked on th e c ase w it h hi s s uper v iso r, Tom Lav ers. Varg as tes ti fied th at w hen9

he met w it h Lov il l, sh e told him she w as pre g nant and w as v er y ups et. Varg as cl aimed that Lovill w as so up set that he could not calm her dow n him self , so he recruite d Garza to w ork on th e c ase. H e c lai med thathe w as conc er ned t hat s he w as emoti onal ly uns tabl e. Varg as admit ted t hat L ov il l’ s p re g nancy w as a factor

thatente re d i nto t he dec is ion to rev oke Lov il l’ s p ro bati on: Q: W as preg nancy

a fact or thatente re d i nto t he te rmi nati on here? A: Fi rs t and foremos t the conc er n w as her us e of methamphet amine. I t w as a v er

y hi g h l ev el. Se condl y , y es, there is a conc er n, c oupl ed w it h that, there i s a co ncer n for the o v erall heal th of herse lf, as w ell as the unbor n c hil d. Q: W h a t o p ti o n s d id you ha ve a t you r di sp o sa l, ot h e r th a n se n d in g a v iol ati on repor

t t o the D A’ s o ff ic e? A: I didn ’t feel I ha d an y othe r option s. Q : W h y? A: Beca use of her ov erall w ell bei ng , as w ell as the heal th an d w ell bei ng of her unbor n c hil d. Q: If she w ere notpreg nant, w hat o pti ons w oul d y ou hav e had? A: I f s h e was not pregna nt, th ere is the po ssibility thatw e w ould ha ve allowed the w arrant to eithe r go throu gh th e norm al chan nels. Th ere is a possibility tha t w e ma y have condu cted a rev iew before the Court to di sc uss w here to g o from t here.

. . . . Q: W hen s o m ebo dy has a positive urinaly sis fo r meth am phe tam ine, is that someth ing thatauto mati cal ly resul ts in a v iol ati on repor t g oin g to the D .A.’ s o ff ic e? A: Ev er

y ca se differs from case to case. Me thamphet amine, from w hat I und erstan d, is a v erypowerfu l drug. It is a strong addictio n. T here is defini tel y a need t o g et as si sta nce for th at pe rs on i mmediat ely

. The case s va ry

f rom ca se to case . So I can’t spe ak—you know, I can’t s p e c if ic a ll y st a t e t h a t e ve ryt h in g is go in g t o b e t h e s a m e wit h wh a twe w oul d do. W e may

hav e a p erson re por

t, in myca se, the follo w ing w eek to see ho w

that[urinalysis] com es ou t, se e if the levels areT h is p e tit io n w a s f ile d a s tr ia l c o u r t c a u s e n o . 0 7
- 5 6 9 0
- A in th e 2 8 th D is tr ic t C o u r t o fN u e c e s C o u n ty, 3 T exas. 10

comi ng d o w n . I f n o t , t h e n i ti s v e r y a p p a re n tt h a tt h i s p e rs o n i s n ot g oin g to sto p us ing , s o w e defini tel y hav e to file a v iol ati on repor t. Defense co unsel q uest ion ed Varg as about a document created by C SC D enti tl ed, “Chronolo gical Record of Co nta cts for L ovil l, A mb er.” On July 17, 200 7, th ere is an en try that re ads: “ Phoned and s poke to Li eutenan t Ashl ey at W ar ra nts and ask ed to se e i f he maybe a ble to hav e an off ic er att empt t o hav e defendant ar re ste d s inc e s he i s c onsumi ng methampheta mines and is 5 m o n th s p re g nant. J .D . Va rg as. ” Varg as admitted t hat h e
w ro te t he ent ry . Defense counsel asked Varg as if he w oul d hav e c all ed Li eutenan t As hle y had Lov il l not b een preg nant. Va rg as sta ted, “I n al l li kel y , no. ” The tr ial co urt denied Lov il l’ s motion for newtri al on October

4, 2007. On Oct ober 11, 200 7, Lo v ill f iled a m otion to am end the con dition s of Lovil l’s prob ation

. T he trial cou rt deni ed th is moti on on Oct ober 12, 2007. Lov il l then appeal ed th e order rev oki ng her probati on and impos ing sa nct ion s for v iol ati ng the ter ms of her probati on. That appeal has been do ck eted as appel lat e c ause number 13- 07- 529- CR

. D. Lov ill’s Petition for Habea s Corpus Lov il l then filed a pe ti ti on for w ri t of habeas co rp us w it h the tr ial co urt s eeki ng reli ef f rom th e trial court’s orde r increasing the term of proba tion a nd se nte ncing Lovil l to a term of confinementi n SAF PF. Lov ill a sk e d t h e courtto tak e j udi ci al noti ce of the pr ior 3 hear ing s, and s he argue d tha t s he w as sel ect iv ely prosec uted. O n October 18, 2007,
w ithou t hold ing a hearing, the trial cou rt denie d the pet ition. The trial court mad e a single findi ng of fac t: “T h e p ro sec uti on of the moti on to rev oke probati on th at w as filed on o r abo ut July 17, 200 7, i n Cause No. 01-CR-372 5-A did not occur be cause of Amb er Lovill ’s11

p re gn a n c y. ” T h e t ri a l co u rt a ls o m a d e a s in gl e c o n c lu s io n o f la w: “A m b e r L o vil l’ s se le c t ive prosec uti on defense re q uired proof that the pros ecut ion of the moti on to rev oke probati on occ ur re d bec ause of her preg nancy .” Lov il l appeal ed the denial of her petit ion for

w ri t of h a b e a s c o r p u s , w h i c h h a s b e e n d o c k e t e d a s a p p e l l a t e c a u s e n u m b e r 1 3
- 0 7
- 6 6 8
- C R

. W e hav e c onsol ida ted t he two appea ls and deci de th em both herein

. II. A PPELLA TE J URI S DI CT I ON The Stat e urges the C our t t o di smi ss Lov il l’ s a ppeal from t he order modi fyi ng the
c o n d it io n s o f

h e r c o m m u n it y su p e rvi s io n . T h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a tt h e re is n o le gi s la t ive author ity for e nter

tai nin g a di re ct appeal f rom an order modi fyi ng the condi ti ons of communi ty

su per v is ion

. See Dav

is v. Sta te , 195 S.W .3d 708 , 710 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 6); Basa ldu a v. St

ate , 558 S.W .2d 2 , 5 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1997) ; see als o Her nandez v. Sta te , No. 13- 07- 263- CR , 2007 W L 17758 09, a t * 1 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Ju ne 21, 2007, no pet.) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. Lov il l re cog niz es that ordin ar il y , an order
mo dify i ng c on di ti on s o f prob at i on i s n ota s ep arat el y a pp ea l ab l e orde r . H ow ev er , Lovill sta tes thatsh e fil ed th e appea l out o f an abundanc e of caut ion bec ause habeas co rp us re lief u n d e r Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re ar ti cl e 11. 072 i s a v ail abl e onl y i n the absen ce of a di re ct re medy by appeal

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11.072, § 3( a) (V er non 200 5)

. W e ag re e tha t w e l ack j ur is dicti on ov er

Lov il l’ s d irectappeal from t he order modify ing the conditi ons of her communi ty su per v is ion

. See D avi

s, 195 S. W .3d a t 710 ; Basa ldu a , 558 S.W .2d a t 5. Acc ordin g ly , w e dismi ss appell ate caus e number 13- 07- 529- CR fo r lack of

jurisdiction. W e w ill add ress Lovill ’s arg um ent s in the cont ext of her request for habe as cor pus re li ef. See B asaldua , 558 S.W .2d a t 5 (“ W e c o n clude t hat t he impos it ion of condi ti ons of proba ti on th a t c ontai n unc onst it uti onal i nfri ng ements of freedom of action constitu tes a ‘restraint ’ w ithin th e scop e of hab eas co rpus relief .”).12 III . WA I VE R OF C OM PL A I NTS Before w e reac h the m er it s, w e must addres s tw o w aiv er arg uments rai sed by

the Stat e . F i rs t , t h e S t a t e a rg u e s t h a t b y p l e a d i n g t r u e t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e mo ti on to
rev oke, Lovil l waiv ed her select iv e prose cution claim. Seco nd, the St ate argues thatLovil l
w aiv ed her

se lecti v e prosec uti on c laim by fail ing to ti mely

obj ectat the A ug ust6, 2007 hea ring on th e Sta te’s mo tion to rev oke. W e disagree w ith bo th argum ent s. A . No Waiv er by

Plea of True The Sta te arg ues that a pl ea of “ tr ue” to a moti on to rev oke probati on w aiv es any non- jur is dicti onal defects that occ ur re d before the ple a w as entered, w hen “ the j udg ment of g uilt w as rend ered indep end entof , and is n ot sup porte d by, the error.” See Youn g v. State , 8 S

. W

. 3 d 6 56, 666 -67 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 0); Jo rd an v . St ate , 112 S.W .3d 3 45, 3 4 7 (T e x. A p p . – Co rp u s Ch ri s t i 2 0 0 3 , p e t

. r e f ’d ). T h e S t a t e a rg u e s t h a twe m u s ta n a lyze
w hether the er ro r has a “ directnex us” w it h Lov il l’ s g uil t or i nnoce nce and bas e our findi ng o f wa ive r s o le ly o n t h e o u t c o m e o f t h is a n a lys is

. T h e S t a t e re a s o n s t h a tb e c a u s e se le c t ive p ro s e c u t io n is n o ta d e fe n s e t o t h e m e ri t s o f t h e c h a rg e d c o n d u c t , L o vil l’ s c la im o f se le c t ive prosec uti on has no c onnec ti on to her g uil t. Thus, ac cordin g to th e State, the o rd er mo dif y ing Lov ill’s prob ation w as rend ered in d e p e nde ntly of any error by the State in sel ect iv ely

prosec uti ng Lov il l, and her pl ea of tr ue w aiv es any er ro r. Th e S t a t e m i s u n d e rs t a n d s t h e m e a n i n g o f Young and its appli cat ion in the present
c o n t e xt

. In Young , t he defendant ple aded g uil ty after the tr ial co urt den ied a mot ion to
s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e . 8 S

. W

. 3 d a t 6 5 7

. Th e c o u rt o f a p p e a l s appl ied the He lm s ru le and hel d tha t t he defendant w aiv ed her r ig ht to complai n of

the tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng by pl eadi ng g uil ty

. Id. Atthe ti me, th e Helm s rule app lied as follows: “W here a p le a o f g u ilty is
v olu ntar il y

and understa ndi ng ly

made, all non-

jur is dicti onal defects i ncl udi ng cl aim ed13

d e p ri vation of

fede ral due p rocess are waiv ed. ” Id. at66 0 (cit in g Hel m s v . St ate , 484 S.W .2d 9 25, 9 26 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1972) ). The cour

t o f cri minal appeal s rev iew ed th e hi sto ry of the Helm s rule, an d it deter mined thatov er

time, the rul e had been di sto rt ed from i ts or ig ina l jus ti ficat ion s. Id. at 657, 666. The c our

t ex pla ine d tha t t he or ig in a l b asi s for the Helm s ru le w as that a defendant’ s g uil ty

pl ea i s c oncl usi v e as to a defendant’ s g uil t. Id. at 66 0-61

. As the court
ex pla ine d, g iv en th is rati onal e for the r ule , “ the r ule w oul d notj ust ify for feiture of cl aims of error that d o notgo to the que stion of guilt, such as den ials o f m otion s t o dism iss becau se the pen al statu te w as invalid or the period of limitation had ex pired. ” Id

. After re v iew ing the ru le’ s his tor y , the court concl uded that in ord er to re main tr ue to the r ule ’s or ig ina l jus ti ficat ion , a pl ea of g uil ty sh oul d onl y

w aiv e er ro rs thatare i ndependen t of the g uil ty

pl ea—“ [w]heth er

ente re d wit h or w it hout an ag re ed recommendat ion of puni shmentby

the Stat e, a v ali d pl ea of g uil ty or nol o c ontende re ‘ w aiv es’ or f o rf e it s t he ri g ht t o appea l a c lai m of e rror onl y w hen t he j udg ment of g uil t w as re ndered i ndependen t of , and is not supp orted by , the error.” Id. at 66 6- 67. As in Young , the supp ression of ev iden ce c a n relate directly to the de fend ant ’s g uil t, and a g uil ty

pl ea may

not be i ndependen t of a t ria l co u rt ’s r uli ng on t he moti on to suppress depending on the ty pe of ev ide nce and the cri me alleg ed. See i d. at 66 7 (“In this
cas e the j udg ment of g uil t i s n ot i ndependen t of the tr ial co urt' s ru lin g o n t h e moti on to suppress the ev ide nce of the off ense, and the judg ment w oul d notbe s uppor ted w it hout that ev ide nce. ”) ; Jor

dan , 112 S.W .3d at 347 . Th us, in sup pression cases, th e cou rt must deter mine if the ev ide nce suppress ed w oul d hav e been re q uired to e sta bli sh the defendant’ s g uil t. See K ennedy v. Sta te , 262 S.W .3d 454, 457- 59 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2008, no pet . h. ). I n oth er

w ords, i f a directnex us ex is ts bet wee n t h e e videnc e and the14

defendant’ s g uil t, a g uil ty pl ea w il l not w aiv e er ro r in faili ng to suppress the ev ide nce. See id. at 458. If the ev id e n ce t o b e suppress ed w oul d notbe req uired to es tabl is h the def end ant ’s g uilt, the n it can be said that the error in ref using to sup press the ev iden ce is ind ependentof a the defendant’ s s ubseq uent g uil ty pl ea. See i

d. How ev er , c ontrar

y to the S tate’ s a rg ument, the factthata s ele ctive prosec uti on cl aim does not i nv olv e the defendant’ s g uil t or i nnoce n ce does not e nd th e i nq uir y and require a f inding of

waiv er in t he Sta te’s favor. A selective p rosecu tion claim is more akin to a deni al of a moti on to di smi ss bec ause the p enal s ta tu e i s inv ali d or the per iod of li mita ti on had ex pired, w hic h as the cour t of cr imi nal appeal s recog niz ed, w oul d notbe
w aiv ed by

a g uil ty plea ev en thoug h the clai med error does not go to the q uest ion of g uil t. Young , 8 S

. W

. 3 d a t6 6 0

. T h u s , we m u s tfo c u s o n t h e a c t u a l i n qu iry re qu ir e d b y Young , w hic h i s w hether

the jud g ment w as re ndered ind ependentof the c lai med er ro r. Id. at 66 7;
see Jor dan , 112 S.W .3d a t 347

. T h e S t a t e h a s n o tci t e d a n y T e xa s c a s e t h a th a s re f u s e d t o co n s id e r a se le c t ive p ro se cu ti o n cla im b e ca u se o f a gui lt y p le a o r a p le a o f “tru e ” in a re voc a ti o n pro ce e d in g. There are none. How ev er , log ic re q uires the conc lus ion that Lov il l’ s ple a of t ru e w as not in d e p e n d e n to f

t h e S t a t e ’s a ll e ge d se le c t ive p ro s e c u t io n . Ob vio u s ly, t h e re wo u ld h a ve been no reason for L ov il l to pl ead “ tr ue” i f the moti on to rev oke had nev er been filed

. And
acc ordin g to Lov il l, i f it w ere notfor the CS CD ’s selecti v e prosec uti on of her bas ed on her preg nancy , no moti on to rev oke w oul d hav e been filed

. Thus, her pl ea of “ tr ue” w as not ind ependentof the a ll eg ed s ele cti v e prosec uti on, a nd the ple a of “ tr ue” did not w aiv e the
er ro r. Cf . Jor dan , 112 S.W .3d a t 347 (f inding error w aived beca use th ere w as no ev iden ce tha t def end antw ould not ha v e plea ded g uilty abse nt cou nsel’s de f icient pe rforma nce).15

B. Timeli ness of obj ection Seco nd, t he St ate arg ues that Lov il l did not ti mely present her se lecti v e prosec uti on c l a i m b e c a u s e s h e d i d n o to bj e c td u r i n g t h e A u g u s t6 , 2 0 0 7 re v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g . W e dis ag re e. At t he Aug ust 6 hear ing , Lov il l’ s c ounse l re peatedl y tol d the co urt t hat t he St ate w as prosec uti ng Lov il l becau se she w as preg nant and as ked that Lov il l be treated the s ame as a non- preg nant off ender

. The Stat e resp onded to this arg ument. T he cour t und ersto od the a rg ument an d s tated on t he record i ts dis ag re ement: “ W ell , I thi nk the f a ct t h a t s he teste d po sitiv e is the reaso n w e are all here , rig ht, n ot f or the fact th at she is preg nan t.” Beca use ev er

y one at the hear ing unders tood the s ubst ance of Lov il l’ s c omplai nt, inc lud ing the t ri al cour

t, w e c oncl ude t hat t he i ss ue w as preser v ed. W ink field v. Sta te, 792 S.W .2d 727, 731 n. 1 ( Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1990, pet. ref’d) ( “To t he extent that an appe ll ate
re cord a deq uatel y

sh ow s t hat t he tr ial j udg e and oppos ing co unsel w ere aw are of the subs tanc e of a defendant' s o bje cti on, t hereby meeti ng the pur pose of an obj ect ion , an obj ect ion preser

v es the c omplai nt for

appel lat e rev iew .” ). Mo re o ver, a se le c t i ve pro se cu ti o n cla im ca n be rai se d atvario u s t im e s d u rin g a cr imi nal proceed ing

. For ex ample, it maybe ra is ed in a moti on to q uash the i ndi ctment

. See C ovalt v

. St ate , 877 S.W .2d 445 , 446 (Tex. A pp. –Hou ston [ 1st Dist.] 199 4, no pet. ). It can als o be ra is ed i n a mot io n f o r n e w tr ial

. Satter white v. Sta te , 726 S.W .2d 8 1, 84 (Te x . Crim. App .19 86) (rev iew ing sele ctiv e prose cution cla im raised in mo tion for new trial),
re v' d on other

gr ounds , 486 U .S. 249 ( 1988) ; see als o Galv an v . St ate, 988 S. W .2d 2 91, 295 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 1999, pet. re f’d)

. After the t ri al cour

t sanct ion ed Lov il l to S AFP F, Lov il l mov ed for a new tr ial , al leg ing selective prosecu tion. The trial court held a h earing, and the issue w as extensively16

li ti g ated. Mo re ov er , Lov il l mov ed to modify the condi ti ons of he r probati on and then filed her peti ti on for w ri t of habeas corpu s, maki ng the same arg uments

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. a rt

. 1 1

. 0 7 2 , § 3 (b ). Lo vil l t o o ke ve ry o p p o rt u n it y t o m a k e h e r c o m p la in t s kn o wn to th e trial court, an d the court clearly und erstoo d and ruled on the issue. Lovill’ s issue is preser v ed for our

rev iew

. Satter

white , 726 S.W .2d a t 84; see als o Gal van, 988 S. W .2d a t 295. As a c oroll ar

y , and w it hout ci ti ng any author ity , the S tate arg ues that Lov il l w aiv ed her co mplai nts bec ause she ask ed to be sancti oned by bei ng pla ced in the C ASA prog ra m or by addi ti onal j ail ti me. The Stat e reason s t hat “ at be st, Lov il l si mply fail ed to obj ect , and , at w orst, sh e aff ir mati v ely as ked to be sa nct ion ed and her co ndi ti ons to be modi fied, thoug h she w as not ulti matel y sancti oned in the ex actmanner sh e des ired.” W e di sag re e that Lov il l’ s req uestto be s ent t o an outpat ien t t re atment fac ili ty o r to a dd ti me to the probated sent ence aff ir mati v ely w aiv ed her

r ig ht t o as ser

t a cl aim of sel ect iv e prosec uti on. “A w aiv er i s o rd ina ri ly

an i ntent ion al re li nq uis hment or abando nment of a k nown r igh t or priv ilege.” Leday

v. Sta te, 9 8 3 S. W .2 d 7 1 3 , 71 8 (T e x. Crim . Ap p . 1 9 9 8 ) (qu o ti n g Johns on v. Zerbst , 304 U.S. 458 , 464 (1938 )). W hen constitu tiona l ri ght s a re a ts t a ke, w e mu st ind ulg e ev er

y reason abl e presumpt ion ag ain st a w aiv er of those ri g hts

. Str ing er v. Sta te , 241 S. W .3d 5 2, 56 ( Tex

. Cr im. App. 2007)

. Beca use her g oal w as to k eep her

baby after it s b ir th, Lov il l re q uest ed th ese opti ons as an alter nati v e to the State’ s prop osal to send her to a lo c k d o w n fa c i l i t y b e c a u s e h e r g o a l w a s t o re ma i n w i t h h e r b a b y a ft e r i t s b i rt h. Her
re qu ests w ere no t incon sistentw ith he r request to dismiss the prosecu tion, w hich w ould h a ve a ls o a c h ie ve d t h e sa m e go a l o f k e e p in g L o vil l wit h h e r b a b y a f t e r b irt h

. Ac c o rd in gl y, Lo v i l l d i d no t affi r ma ti v el y w ai v e he r

s el ec ti v e pros ec ut i on c l ai m.17 IV. E QUA L P ROT E CT I ON Lovill argues tha t the State selectively prosecu ted h e r b a s ed o n he r g end er in
v iol ati on of t h e Eq ual Protec ti on C lau se of the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on and the E q ual Ri g hts Amendmentto the Tex as Con sti tuti on ( “E RA ”)

. See U. S. C ON ST
. amend. V , X IV; T EX
. C ON ST
. art. I, § 3a (“ Equality und er the law shall not be denie d or abridged b ecau se of sex , race, co lor , creed, or nati onal ori g in. T his amendment is se lf-o perati v e.” ). The S tate dis putes near ly

ev er y facet of Lov il l’ s c lai ms. F irst, the Stat e argue s th a t Lov il l faile d to demonst ra te t hat t he v iol ati on repor t w as filed and that the c ondi ti ons of Lov il l’ s p ro bati on
w ere modif ied becau se of her preg nan cy . Seco nd, the St ate argues thatev en if pregnancy
w as a facto r, it did n o ta m oun t to gende r-based discriminat ion. Finally, ev en if it dis cr imi nated based on g ender , t he St ate a rg ues that suc h di sc ri minat ion w as jus ti fied. The par ti es ag ree t h a t Lov il l’ s federal cons ti tuti onal cl aim is su bje ct to i nter mediat e scrutiny, w hich requires t hatt he St ate dem onst rate th at th e discrimina tory classif ication is subs tanti all y

rela ted t o an impor

tant g ov er nmental int erest

. Cas ar ez v. Sta te , 913 S.W .2d 468, 473 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1994)

. How ev er , t he par ti es dis pute th e t ype o f rev iew that app lies to gende r-based distinction s u nde r th e T exas Equa l Rights Ame ndm ent(“ ERA”). T EX
. C ON ST
. art. I, § 3a. A . St and ard o f Rev iewin H abea s C or pu s A pp eals In t his ca se, the tr ial cour t ru led on the meri ts of Lo v il l’ s peti ti on for w ri t of habeas
cor pus. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. art. 11 .07 2, § 7(a ). W e re v iew the trial court’s deci si on to g ra nt or

deny habeas reli ef for

abus e of di sc re ti on. Ex par te W ils on, 171 S.W .3d 925 , 928 (Tex. App. –Dallas 2005 , no pet.). “[W ]e v iew the facts in the lig ht m ost favorable to th e trial court’s ruling.” I d. (cit in g Ex par te Peter son , 117 S.W .3d 8 04, 8 19 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2003) ( per cu ri am), over

ruled i n par t on other

gr ounds , Ex parte Lew

is,18

219 S. W .3d 335, 371 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) ). W e mustafford al most total deferen ce to the j udg e’s dete rmi nati on of the his tor ic al facts that are s uppor ted b y the re cord, par ti cul ar ly if the fact findi ng s a re bas ed on an ev alu ati on of credi bil ity and demeanor

. Id. If the resol uti on of the ult imat e q uest ion s o f law tur ns on an ev alu ation o f credi bil ity and demeanor , w e w il l li kew is e defer to the tr ial cour t’ s re sol uti on of the leg al is sue. Id. “I f the
re sol uti on of the ult imat e q uest ion s tur ns on an appl ic ati on of l eg al sta ndards, w e rev iew the dete rmina tion d e no v o.” Id. B. Select iv e Pr osec ut io n Gen eral ly Prosec utors e njo y

si g nific ant d is creti o n i n their prosec utor ial dec is ion s. United States v. Ar

m str ong, 517 U .S. 456, 464 ( 1996) ; Nea l v. State , 1 5 0 S

. W

. 3 d 1 6 9 , 1 7 3 (T e x. Crim. App . 200 4); Cou nty v. State, 812 S. W .2d 3 03, 3 08 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1989) ; Car re ra s
v. State , 9 3 6 S

. W

. 2 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 0 (T e x. A p p . – Ho u s t o n [ 1 4 t h Di s t

. ] 1 9 9 6 , p e t

. re f ’d ). Ge n e ra ll y, “‘[i]f the pro secut or has prob able cause to believe tha t the accuse d com mitt ed a n of fense def ined bystatu te, th e de cision w het her to p rosecu te an d w hatcharge to f ile g ene rally rests ent irely

w ithin his or her discretio n.’” Nea l , 1 5 0 S. W

. 3 d a t1 7 3 (quo ti n g Sta te v. Ma lon e Ser

v. Co. , 8 2 9 S.W .2d 7 63, 7 69 ( Tex .1992) ); see Ar m str ong, 517 U .S. at 46 4. Beca use o f

this discretion , t h e re is a presum ption thata prosecu tor has a cted w ithin his
or her duti es and i n g ood fait h. Ar m str ong , 517 U .S. at 46 4; Roi se v. State , 7 S.W .3d 2 25, 243 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1999, pet. ref’d)

. Prosec utor ial di sc re ti on, h ow ev er , i s n ot ab sol ute— prosec utors a re co nst ra ine d by the c onst it uti on. Ar

m str ong , 517 U .S. at 46 4; Cou nty , 812 S. W .3d a t 308 ; Roise , 7 S.W .3d at 24 3. For

ex ample, the Eq ual Protec ti on Cl ause prohi bit s prosec utor ial dec is ion s b ased on “ an unj ust ifiab le sta ndard s uch as ra ce, reli g ion , or othe r ar bit ra ry

cl ass if ica ti o n.” Ar m str ong , 5 1 7 U.S . a t 4 6 4 (quo ti n g Oyler v. Boles , 368 U .S. 448, 456 ( 1962) ); Green v.T he S t ate arg ue s t ha t Lo vi l l ’ s c l ai m i s rea l l y on e fo r “ s el ec t i ve e nfo rce m en t , ” r athe r t ha n fo r “ s el ec t i ve 4 pr osecut i on, ” beca use L ov i l l was pr osecut ed and f ound gui l t y l ong bef or e t he pr esent r ev ocat i on p r oceedi ng. I t argu es t ha t a c om m un i t y su pe rvi s i on revoc ati on proc ee di ng i s ne i t he r a cri m i na l n or a c i vi l t ri al , bu t rat he r, an adm i ni st r at i v e pr oceedi ng, ci t i ng C o b b v . S ta te , 85 1 S

. W

. 2d 87 1, 87 3 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 93 ). H ow eve r, t he St at e does not asser t t hat t he st andar ds appl i cabl e t o a “ sel ect i v e en f or cem ent ” cl ai m ar e an y di ff er ent t han t hose appl i cabl e t o a “ sel ect i v e pr osecut i on” cl ai m , and t he St at e r el i es on sel ect i v e pr osecut i on ca ses t hr ougho ut i t s br i ef

. W e see no di ff er ence bet ween t he t wo, and we wi l l ana l y z e Lo v i l l ’ s ar gum ent s und er t he case l aw appl i cabl e t o sel ect i v e pr osecut i on cl ai m s. 19 State , 934 S.W .2d 9 2, 10 3 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996)

. To ov er come t he presumpt ion of
re g ula ri ty

thatatt aches to prosec utor ial dec is ion s, a c ri minal defendant m u st m ake an “e x cept ion all y

clear” show ing of

an E q ual Protec ti on v iol ati on. Ar m str ong , 517 U .S. at 46 4; Gr een , 934 S.W .2d a t 103

. O rd in a ry s t a n d a rd s fo r e qu a l p ro t e c t io n cl a im s a p p ly i n t h e co n t e x to f se le c t ive prosec uti on. Ar

m str ong , 517 U .S. at 46 5; Car re ra s , 936 S.W .2d a t 730

. The defendant 4 must show

thatthe prosec utor ial po lic y h a d a di sc ri minat or y effectand that itw as moti v ated by

a dis cr imi nator

y pur pose. Ar

m str ong , 517 U .S. at 46 5; Car re ra s , 936 S.W .2d
a t 73 0

. Fir st , to sh o w d isc rim in a to ry ef fe ct , t h e de fe n d a n t m u stde m o n st ra te th a t a lt h o u gh ot he rs t ha t are no t pa rt of t he p rot ec te d c l as s h av e no t be en p ros ec ute d for t he s am e condu ct, he or she w as si ng led out for pros ecut ion

. See A rm str ong , 51 7 U .S

. at4 65 ( “ To esta blish a discrimi nat oryef fect in a race ca se, th e claima nt m ust sho w thatsimilarly si tuate d i ndi v idu als of a di ff e re n t ra ce w ere notprosec uted. ”) ; Car re ra s , 936 S.W .2d a t 730 . Secon d, to dem onst rate th at th e prose cution w as mo tiv ate d by a discr im in a tory pur pose, the defendant mus t s how thatthe g ov er nment’ s s ele cti on of the defendant for prosec uti on w as based on a n i mpermi ss ibl e c onsi derati on, s uch as ra ce, reli g ion , or the d e s i r e t o p r e v e n tt h e e x e r c i s e o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g hts

. W ayte v . U nited St ates , 470 U .S. 598, 610 ( 1985)

. Onc e the defendant makes a cl ear sh ow ing of an Eq ual Protec ti on
v iol ati on, the b urden s hifts to the S tate to j ust ify the dis cr imi nator

y treatment. See Johnso n20

v. Ca lif o rnia , 543 U .S. 499, 505 ( 2005) ( hol din g thatthe Stat e had burden t o s how that race-ba sed classif ication s satisf ied strict scrutiny ana ly sis). C. Di scri min at or

y Ef fe ctan d Pur po se Lov il l cont ends that the t ri al cour t er re d by

findi ng that the prosec uti on of the moti on t o r e v o k e “ d i d n o t o c c u r b e c a u s e o f A mb e r L o v i l l ’ s p re g n a n c y . ” L o v i l l a rg u e s t h a tthe probati on of

ficers’ testi mony

establ is hed that CSC D ini ti ates the prosec uti on of preg nant
w om en for

p rob at i on v i ol at i on s i n sit ua ti on s w he re th e C SC D w ou l d no t ma k e th e s am e re commendat ion i f the defendant w ere male or a nonpreg nant female. Lov il l als o as ser ts that the CS CD off ic ers a dmit ted t hat h er preg nancy

w as a moti v ati ng factor i n the dec is ion to prosec ute h er . The Stat e arg ues that Lov il l w as prosec uted becau se she v iol ated the t er ms of her pro b a t i o n a n d b e c a u s e s h e a p p e a re d e mo t i o n a l l y u n s t a b l e w h e n s h e re p o rt e d t o her probati on officers, not b ecaus e s he w as preg nant. I n oth er w ords, the Stat e arg ues that Lov il l’ s c lai m must fail becau se she w as g uil ty of v iol ati ng her

probati on. H ow ev er , t he g uil t or i nnoce nce of the defendant is i rrele v a nt t o the cl aim of sel ect iv e prosec uti on. A rm str ong , 5 1 7 U.S. at 46 3; Gal van , 988 S.W .2d a t 295

. Thus, the factthatthe Stat e could hav

e prosec uted Lov il l for v iol ati ng her probati on does not matte r—the rele v ant inq uir y i s w hether

the Stat e would have prosecu ted her abse nt th e imp ermissible
c o n s id e ra t io n o f

h e r p re gn a n c y. Th e trial court’s sole conclu sion of law w as tha t Lovill ’s selectiv e prose cution claim
re q uired proof that she w as pro sec uted “be caus e of” her preg nancy . It found as a matte r of factthatLov il l w as not p ro sec uted “b ecaus e of” her preg nancy . It appears that the t ri al court failed to recogniz e tha t in a select iv e prose cution claim, th e discrimina tory purp ose need not b e the only purp ose for the p rosecu tion. Rather, the discriminat orypurpo se mu stA s th e S u p re m e C o u rt re c o g n i ze d , 5 [ r ] ar el y can i t be sai d t hat a l egi sl at ur e oradm i ni st r at i v e bo dy ope r at i ng u nder a br oad m and a t e m a d e a d e c i s i o n m o t i v a t e d s o l e l y b y a s i n g l e c o n c e r n , o r e v e n t h a t a par t i cul ar pur pose was t he “ dom i nant ” or“ pr i m ar y ” one . I n f act , i t i s beca use l egi sl at or s and adm i ni st r at or s ar e pr oper l y concer ned wi t h bal anci ng num er ous co m pet i ng co nsi der at i ons t hat c o u r t s r e f r a i n f r o m r e v i e wi n g t h e m e r i t s o f t h e i r d e c i s i o n s , a b s e n t a showi ng o f ar bi t r ar i ness o r i r r at i on al i t y . But r aci al di scr i m i nat i on i s not j ust ano t her com pet i ng consi der at i on. W hen t her e i s a pr ooft hat a d i scr i m i nat or y pur pose has b een a m ot i v at i ng f act or i n t he d eci si on, t hi s j udi ci al def er ence i s no l ongerj ust i f i ed. Vi ll . o f A rli n g to n H e i

g h ts v . M e tro . H o u s . D e v . C o rp ., 42 9 U

. S

. 25 2, 26 5-6 6 (19 77 ). 21 merel y be a “ moti v ati ng factor” for th e dec is ion to prosec ute. See Wayte, 470 U. S. at 61 0 (“ ‘[ D] is cr imi nator

y purpos e’ . . . impl ies that the decis ion maker

. . . se lected o r re aff ir med a pa rticular course of

a ction at least in part ‘beca use of ,’ n ot me rely ‘in spite o f ,’ its adverse eff ect s u pon an ide nti fiabl e g ro up.” ); Vi ll. of Ar li ngton Hei

ghts v. Metr o. Hous. D ev. C or

p. , 429 U.S. 252 , 265 -66 (197 7); Ma rs hal l v. Colum bia Lea Reg ’

l Hos p. , 345 F .3d 1 157, 1168 5 (1 0th C ir . 200 3) ; United S tates v. Al am eh , 341 F .3d 1 67, 1 73 ( 2d C ir . 200 3)

. T he St ate argues thatt h e C S CD of f icers’ testimo ny at th e he aring w as pu rely sp e culati v e and merel y show ed a poss ibi li ty that the depar tment w oul d not hav e filed a
v iol ati on repor

t i f Lov il l had not

been preg nant. As Lov il l poi nts out, w e mustdefer to t he tr ial c our t’ s fin din g s o f his tor ic al facts w hen t hey are s uppor

ted b y the re cord and w hen they depend on deter minat ion s o f credi bil ity and demeanor

. Ex par te Wil son, 171 S.W .3d at 92 8. How ev er , i f the tr ial co urt’ s factfindi ng i s n ot s uppor ted b y the re cord, w e may make c ontrar

y findi ng s. See E

x p ar te Peter son , 117 S.W .3d a t 819 n. 67; E x p a rte A da ms , 768 S. W .2d 2 81, 2 88 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1989)

. T he only evidence came f rom the State’s w itnesse s, w ho adm itted tha t the y w ere not “ w il li ng to workwit h” Lov il l to t ry al ter nati v e meas ures becau se of her preg nancy . Garza ex plaine d tha t CSCD has discretion w het her to f ile a violation report w ith the district attor ney ’s off ic e. As she sta ted, once CS CD makes thatdec is ion and s e n d s the repo rt ,T he St at e ar gues t hat t hi s t est i m ony i s specu l at i v e b ec ause t he d ef ense nev er cal l ed L av er s, 6 G ar z a’ s and Var gas’ s supe r v i sor , t o t est i f y . T he St at e does not ci t e any l egal aut hor i t y t o suppor t i t s ar gum ent t hat Lav er s’ s t est i m ony was r equi r ed. M or eov er , t he St at e di d not obj ect t o G ar z a’ s t est i m ony at t he h ear i ng a s s p e c u l a ti v e , a s n o t b a s e d o n h e r o w n p e rs o n a l k n o w l e d g e , o r a s h e a rs a y . 22 it “turns into a m otion to rev oke. ” T he d istrict attorne y ’s of f ice relies on CSCD’s deter minat ion and does not ty pic all y co nducti ts ow n i nv e st iga ti on. She ex pla ine d tha t there are al ter nati v es to fil ing a v iol ati on repor t, suc h as proce edi ng w it h a prob ati on rev iew before a j udg e. G a rza t e s t if ie d t h a ta vio la t io n r e p o rti s n o ta u t o m a t icwh e n a p e rs o n t e s t s p o s it ive for dr ug s— she admit te d t h a t the depar tment has dis creti on to refuse to send a v iol ati on re por t t o the di str ic t attor ney ’s off ic e ev en i f the probati oner fail s a ur ina ly si s. She tes ti fied tha t the d epa rtme nt consid ers t he prob ation er’s p ast and e xten uat ing ci rcumst ance s, such
as preg nancy . Gar z a tes ti fied that on s ome ca ses , C SC D has w or ked w it h i ndi v idu als w ho te ste d posi ti v e for dr ug s. ButC SC D w as not w il li ng to w or k w it h Lov il l becau se she w as preg nant. Gar z a tes ti fied th at “ w hat d ro v e thi s v iol ati on repor t w as the p osi tive [ur ina ly si s] and her bein g pregnan t.” Garza explained thather supe rv isors mad e the decision to rev oke L ovil l’s p ro b a t io n , a n d t h a tt h e su p e rvi s o rs “t o o kin t o co n s id e ra t io n t h e le ve ls o n yo u r p o s it ive
ur ina ly si s. It w as more than three ti mes the cut off and that she w as preg nant. ” F ro m her 6
re v iew of the c ase file, sh e tes ti fied th at preg nancy w as a fact or

that c aused the moti on to
re v oke to be fil ed. Gar z a s tated thathad Lov il l not b een preg nant, a probati on rev iew may hav e been
sc hed u le d i nst ead of a v iol ati on repor t bei ng fil ed. Varg as admitted t hat a bsentthe preg nancy , he “mi g ht hav e att empted a rev iew and sc hedul ed w eekl y

v is it s t o s ee how

sh e is doi ng ” and “ more ra ndom [ur ina ly si s] to see if the lev els are comi ng dow n to s ee i f she23

can do it on her

ow n.” Va rg as admitted t hat t he preg nancy “ eli minat ed any

doubt ” about the deci si on he had to make. Con trar y to the Stat e’s arg uments , there is n o th ing
s p e c u la t ive a b o u ta n y o f t h is t e s t im o n y. A lt hou gh a trial court has discretion to disregard unco ntrad icted te stimo ny tha t it finds inc re dib le and unw orthy of bel ief, see Ex par

te Patter son , 117 S.W .3d a t 819 n.68 , w e bel iev e tha t t o reach the fin din g i t di d, t he tr ial co urt mus t hav e di sreg arded all of the evi dence present ed. In t his ca se, the tr ial co urt w as not free to di sreg ard the ov er w hel ming evidence p resen ted at the hea ring showing a discrimina tory ef fe c ta n d p urpo se, w hich
a l l o w e d o n l y a s i n g l e c o n c l u s i o n . W e h o l d t h a t t h e fa c t fi n d i n g i s n o t suppo rt ed bythe
re cord. See i

d. ; E x p a rte A da ms , 768 S .W .2d a t 288

. T he evidence sh ows (1) that Lo v ill
w as treated differentl y

than othe rs w ho v iol ated the ter ms of their probati on but w ere not preg nant, and (2 ) thather preg nancy w as a moti v ati ng factor i n the dec is ion to prosec ute. Addi ti onal ly , t he tr ial co u rt ’s concl usi on th at Lo v il l w as re q uired to sh ow thatsh e w as prosec uted “b ecaus e of” her preg nancy

i g nores the a ct u a l tes t for an Eq ual Protec ti on claim—a ll that is required is tha t th e i m perm issible consid eratio n be a mo tiv ating facto r. See Wayte, 470 U .S. at 61 0; Vi ll

. of Ar li ngton Hei

ghts , 429 U.S. at 26 5- 66; Marshall , 345 F. 3d at1168; Al

am eh , 341 F.3d at173 . Th e evidence clearly estab lishes tha t it w as. Nev erthel ess , t he St ate a rg ues that the ev ide nce show ed that ev en i f Lov il l had not been preg nant, the Stat e probabl y w oul d hav e fil ed a probation rev iew and tak en her before a ju d ge , wh ich could have produ ced th e sam e result. W e disagree th at th is is a p ro p e r c o n s id e ra t io n . Co u rt s ca n n o tsp e c u la t e wh e t h e r t h e sa m e o u t c o m e wo u ld h a ve occ ur re d abs ent t he s ele cti v e prosec uti on. See Vasqu ez v. Hil lary , 474 U .S. 254, 264 (1 986)

. As the S upreme C our t s aid i n Vasq uez ,24

[j ]us t as a co n vict ion i s v oid under the Eq ual Protec ti on C lau se if the p ro se cu tor

del ibe ra tel y

ch arg ed th e defendant on ac countof his race, a conv ic ti on canno t be understo od to cure the tai nt attr ibu tabl e to a c harg ing body se lected o n the basi s of race. Onc e hav ing found di sc ri minat ion i n the selectio n of

a grand jury , w e simp ly c ann ot kno w thatthe ne ed to indict w ould have bee n a s s e s sed in th e sam e w ay by a grand jury prope rly cons ti tuted

. Id. Fi nal ly , t he St ate a rg ues that ev en i f preg nancy w a s a f a ct o r in the deci si on to prosec ute, itdi d not d iscri minat e ag ain st Lov il l based on h er g ender

. It arg ues that pregnan cy

cause s add ed stress, anxiety, and physical sickness to the ex pect antmot her,
w hic h make s i t di ff ic ultto compl y w it h condi ti ons of proba ti on and to mai ntai n the w il lpo w er neces sar

y to ov er come a dr ug addi cti on. The Stat e arg ues that Lov il l ask s the Stat e to do the i mposs ibl e—t o di sreg ard the bi olo g ic a l a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l s y mp t o msof preg nancy ev en thoug h tho se sy mptoms mayeffecther rehabi li tati on. The Stat e cit es no author ity for i ts
arg ument, w hic h w e bel iev e i s based on ar chai c and outdat ed v iews of preg nancy and of
w om en. Ev en if the Sta te acts w ith the inten t of protect ing a pregnant woman ’s health , it still may overstep the bou nda ries of the con stitutio n w hen its action s result i n discrimina tory tr e a tm ent b ased on preg nancy . See, e.g., Clev ela nd Bd. of Educ . v

. LaF leu r , 4 1 4 U .S. 6 3 2 , 6 4 1 -4 8 (19 7 4 ) (h o ld in g th a t a m a te rn it y lea ve p o lic y w a s u n co n st it u ti o n a l e ven th o u gh desi g ned t o protec t preg nant w oman’s heal th)

. Acc ordin g ly , w e s ust ain Lov il l’ s first is sue. C. Justific ation Lovill and the St ate both conce de th at unde r the United Sta tes C onst itution , gende rbased di sc ri minat ion cl aims are ev alu ated under an int er mediat e sc ru ti ny anal y si s. See Cl ar k v . Jeter , 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988)

. Lov il l arg ues, how ev er , that the ERA ele v ated g ender to the s ame l ev el of prot ect ion as ra ce, co lor , c re ed, o r nati onal or ig in; therefore,
ac c ordi ng t o Lo v i l l , w e mus t ap pl y a st r i c t s c r ut i ny

ana l y s i s to he r

st at e c on s ti tu ti on al c l ai m,25

ra t h e r t h a n a n in t e rm e d ia t e sc ru t in y a n a lys is

. T h e S t a t e a rg u e s t h a tt h e le s s re s t ri c t ive “rati onal bas is ” tes t app li es to g ender-b ased cl aims

. Our anal y si s o f these arg uments i s h inde re d bythe fact th at t he tr ial co urt nev er re a ch e d t h is i ss ue. The tr ial co urt, in a habea s c or pus proceed ing , may rev iew the appl ic ant’ s p eti ti on w it hout re q uest ing a respon se from the Stat e. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. art. 11.072, § 5( b). I f

the Stat e does not file an ans w er , al l all eg ati ons in the a ppl ic ati on a r e d e e me d d e n i e d

. Id. art. 11.072, § 5( e)

. As is apparent from i ts findi ng of fact and conclu sion of

law , the trial cou rt d ete rmine d tha t Lovill did notmee t her bu rden to esta blish an Eq ual Protec ti on v iol ati on. Had the tr ial co ur t cor re ctl y deter mined that Lov il l met her burden, the b urden w oul d hav e the n s h ifte d to the S tate to j ust ify i ts condu ct under

the appropr iat e l ev el of scr uti ny . See Johnso n , 543 U .S. at 50 5. The record on thi s i ss ue i s w hol ly undev elo ped and req uires a hear ing by the tr ial
c o u rt

. W e a re n o tin t h e p o s it io n t o d e c id e t h e s e is s u e s in t h e f ir s tin s t a n c e . Ac c o rd in gl y,
w e rev erse the tri al cour t’ s denia l of Lov il l’ s peti ti on for w ri t of habeas c or pus and remand to the tri al cour

t. See Ex parte Che rry, 232 S. W .3d 3 05, 3 08 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 20 07, pet. re f’d) ( re v ersi ng and re mandin g deni al of p e ti ti on for w ri t of habeas co rp us so that appropr iat e record c oul d be dev elo ped) ; see also Ex parte Headrick , N os. W R- 65676- 01, W R- 65676- 02, 2006 W L 2848147, at *1 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2006) (o rd er ) (h old ing th a t an appel lat e c our

t i s n ot eq uip ped t o make factual findi ng s o n rev iew of deni al of peti ti on for
w ri t of habeas co rp us)

. On remand, t he tr ial co urt s houl d req uire the Stat e to re spond to Lov il l’ s E q ual Protec ti on c lai m . I t s houl d det er mine the a ppropr iat e l ev el of scr uti ny that appl ies an d tak e ev ide nce on th e appl ic ati on of thatl ev el of scr uti ny i n thi s c ase. Fur ther more, the tr ial co urt i s i nst ru cte d to make s peci fic fin din g s o f factand conc lus ion s of law se tti ng out it s r uli ng s o n w hether the Stat e meets i ts burden of proof t o j u stifyi tsW e do not r each Lov i l l ’ s ar gum ent t hat t he St at e’ s sel ect i v e pr osecut i on o fherbase d on her 7 p re g n a n c y a l s o im p i n g e d o n h e r rig h t to p riva c y i n m a k i n g c h i l d -b e a rin g d e c i s i o n s . T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. T he tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t re a c h th i s i s s u e a n d s h o u l d c o n s i d e r i t o n re m a n d

. 26 discrimina tory treat me nt of Lovil l. V. C ONCL US I ON W e di smi ss Lov il l’ s a ppeal from t he order modi fyi ng the condi ti ons of her probati on for l ack of jur is dicti on. Beca use the t ri al cour t erred in f ind ing that Lov il l did not sus tai n her burden of sh ow ing an E q ual Protec ti on v iol ati on, w e re v erse the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er deny ing L o vill’s peti ti on for w ri t of habeas co rp us and remand to the tr ial co urt for further proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

. 7

GIN A M . BE NA VID ES, J u s t i c e Publ is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Opinio n de liv ered and f iled this the 2 2nd day

of Dec ember , 200 8.