# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 23

- 00296

- CR IN RE Adan Michel REYES ALVARADO Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice Delivered and Filed: August 23, 2023 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIE D WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART Relator is a noncitizen who was arrested under Operation Lone Star, processed, and released on bond. After his bonded release, relator was removed from the country. Following his removal, relator filed an application for writ o f habeas corpus. He sought the issuance of a habeas writ, an evidentiary hearing, and dismissal of his underlying charges because, he alleges, the charges violate equal protection principles. The trial court denied relator’s habeas application, without iss uing a writ or holding a hearing. Relator filed this mandamus proceeding arguing the trial court erred by denying his application for writ of habeas corpus without issuing the habeas writ or holding a hearing. 2

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 31312 , styled State of Texas v. Adan Michel Reyes Alvarado , pending in the County Court , Maverick County, Texas, the Honorable Susan D. Reed presiding. 2 Relator also filed a motion to stay the underlying proceeding pending our final resolution of his mandamus petition, which we granted in part by staying all pretrial settings requiring relator’s in

- person appearance.04

- 23

- 00296

- CR

- 2

- For mandamus relief to be available in a cri minal case, a relator “must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm” and “that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision.” State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud

. Dist. Ct. App

. at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding ); see also In re City of Lubbock , 666 S.W.3d 546, 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (orig. proceeding) (“Mandamus relief is available for a novel issue or one of first impression with un contested facts when the law points to but one clear result.”).
M OOTNESS We first address whether this proceeding is moot. The State argues that because the trial court issued a ruling on relator’s habeas application, his mandamus petition is moot. See In re Bonilla , 424 S.W.3d 528, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (holding mandamus petition was moot where relator received relief sought)

. The trial court’s order is comprised of several options to choose from depending on the trial court’s rulin g and whether the ruling is one on the merits. Here, the trial court chose the following: The Court having considered [the Application] is of the opinion same should be:
X the Application is denied without issuing the writ. The trial court did not select the following options: the Application is granted, an order issuing the writ and hearing to be held

. the Application is granted with an order issuing the writ, and the merits will be heard by submission of evidence under the following schedule. . . . We hold this mandamus proceeding is not moot as to relator’s request for an evidentiary hearing on his habeas application or on his request for the issuance of a habeas writ. The trial court’s order specifically states the trial court based its ruling on relator’s application. It is apparent04

- 23

- 00296

- CR

- 3

- from the trial court’s order that relator did not receive the issuance of a writ or the evidentiary hearing he sought. Instead, the order shows the trial court affirmatively rejected the issuance of a

wr it, holding an evidentiary hearing, or the submission of written evidence by refusing selections corresponding with these actions. Additionally, the mandamus record does not show that the trial court issued a writ or held an evidentiary hearing, and the State does not as sert otherwise. The trial court’s order and record also do not suggest that the trial court ruled on the merits of relator’s equal protection claim. If the trial court ruled on the merits of relator’s habeas application, then the proper remedy is to appeal the order denying relator’s habeas application

— not to seek mandamus review. See Ex parte Villanueva , 252 S.W.3d 391, 395 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“[A]n appeal may be prosecuted when a judge issues a ruling on the merits.”); Ex parte Sifuentes , 639 S.W.3d 8 42, 846 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2022, pet. ref’d) (citation omitted) (“If the record shows that the trial court heard evidence and addressed the merits, the result is appealable.”). Here, there is no indication the trial court ruled on the merits of relator ’s equal protection claim. Instead, the trial court’s order indicates that relator’s habeas application was denied without the development or consideration of an evidentiary record. Because the trial court did not issue a writ or rule on the merits of rela tor’s habeas application, relator did not receive the relief he sought from the trial court, and there remains a live controversy. Cf. Winkler v. State , 252 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952) (holding case moot where there ceased to be live controversy).
H A BEAS C LAIM Next, relator contends mandamus is proper to direct the trial court to issue a writ and to rule on the merits of his equal protection claim. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 11.15 (upon receiving an application for writ of habeas corpus, a trial court shall issue the writ “unless it be manifest from the petition itself, or some documents annexed to it, that the party is entitled to no relief whatever.”). If relator’s un derlying habeas claim is cognizable, he may be entitled to relief.04

- 23

- 00296

- CR

- 4

- See id. ; Click v. State , 39 S.W.2d 39, 41 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1931) (“ Where one entitled to a writ of habeas corpus makes proper application for it to the proper court having jurisdiction, sai d application conforming to all the statutory requirements and probable cause being shown, the writ of habeas corpus cannot be denied to the relator, for it then becomes a constitutional right. ”). On June 21, 2023, we issued an opinion holding that a sele ctive

- prosecution equal protection claim is cognizable in a pre

- trial application for writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte Aparicio , No. 04

- 22

- 00632

- CR, 2023 WL 4095939 , at *11 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio June 21, 2023, pet. filed ) (en banc). Relator asserts a s imilar claim here. In light of our recent decision, we believe the trial court should have an opportunity to reconsider its decision

— not to issue the habeas writ or hold an evidentiary hearing

— on relator’s habeas application. See id. ; see also Ex parte Liz cano , No. WR

- 68,348

- 03, 2018 WL 2717035, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers Inc ., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow tri al court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent. Or. Truck Co., Inc. , 644 S.W.3d 668, 671 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to relator’s seeking relief , if necessary, after the trial court has had an opportunity to reconsider its ruling. Finally, relator filed a motion to urge the trial court to conduct a hearing on his application for writ of habeas corpus prior to his in

- person setting on April 4, 202 3, or in the alternative, to continue his in

- person setting. Because we stayed the in

- person requirement, Relator’s complaint04

- 23

- 00296

- CR

- 5

- about his required in

- person attendance at the April 4, 2023 pretrial hearing is moot

. Bonilla , 424 S.W.3d at 534

. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH