Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00306-CR

EX PARTE Juan Jose SANTIAGO VILLALOBOS

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 30, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED 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 of 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 issuing 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.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 31577, styled State of Texas v. Juan Jose Santiago Villalobos, pending in 

the County Court, Maverick County, Texas, the Honorable Susan D. Reed presiding.
04-23-00306-CR

- 2 -

For mandamus relief to be available in a criminal 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.” See 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 uncontested facts 

when the law points to but one clear result.”).

MANDAMUS JURISDICTION

We must first resolve whether the trial court ruled on the merits of relator’s habeas 

application because, if it did, 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.”); 

In re Lara Belmontes, No. 04-23-00293-CR, 2023 WL 5249618, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 

Aug. 16, 2023, no pet. h.) (delineating mandamus is available to review the denial of a habeas 

application if the ruling was not on the merits); Ex parte Sifuentes, 639 S.W.3d 842, 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.”); see also Bell v. State, 515 

S.W.3d 900, 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (per curiam) (citation omitted) (“Appellate courts must 

review jurisdiction regardless of whether it is raised by the parties.”).

The trial court’s order is comprised of several options it can select as circumstances 

warrant. 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. 
04-23-00306-CR

- 3 -

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. . . . 

The trial court’s order and relator’s record do not suggest that 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 issuing the writ or the development or consideration of an 

evidentiary record. Because the trial court did not issue a writ or rule on the merits of relator’s 

habeas application, mandamus is the proper appellate vehicle to review relator’s arguments. See

Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d at 395; Lara Belmontes, 2023 WL 5249618, at *2; Sifuentes, 639 S.W.3d 

at 846.

HABEAS CLAIM

On the merits of his petition, relator argues mandamus is proper to direct the trial court to 

issue a writ and to rule on the merits of his equal protection claim. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. 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 underlying habeas claim is cognizable, he may 

be entitled to relief. 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, said 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 selective-prosecution equal 

protection claim is cognizable in a pre-trial application for writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte 
04-23-00306-CR

- 4 -

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 similar 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 

Lizcano, 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 trial court to reconsider decision in light of new 

precedent); accord 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 argues that his in-person appearance at an April 4, 2023 pretrial hearing 

should be waived until the trial court rules on the merits of his habeas application. Because this 

date has passed, relator’s complaint about his required in-person attendance at the April 4, 2023 

pretrial hearing is dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH