Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00389-CR

EX PARTE Juan Antonio VERASTEGUI ARANDA

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10981CR

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 5, 2024

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

DENIED

Appellant, Juan Antonio Verastegui Aranda, 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 Verastegui Aranda’s request, and deny his mandamus 

petition.

BACKGROUND

Verastegui Aranda, a noncitizen, was arrested under Operation Lone Star and charged with 

the misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass. On February 1, 2023, Verastegui Aranda 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, 
04-23-00389-CR

- 2 -

when it decided to charge him. On March 15, 2023, the trial court issued an order stating, “the 

Application is denied without issuing writ.” Verastegui Aranda timely filed a notice of appeal.

On April 5, 2024, we issued an order notifying Verastegui Aranda 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. 

Verastegui Aranda filed a response on April 11, 2024, in which he argues that the trial 

court’s “order is appealable.” Verastegui Aranda 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 
04-23-00389-CR

- 3 -

2023, orig. proceeding)). Further, no reporter’s record has been filed, and nothing in the record 

shows that the trial court held any hearings related to Verastegui Aranda’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 Verastegui Aranda’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 Verastegui Aranda’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, Verastegui Aranda 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 

Verastegui Aranda’s appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus. 

After considering the petition and the record, we deny Verastegui Aranda’s request for 

mandamus relief. See id. at *2–4.

1 Verastegui Aranda 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, Verastegui Aranda 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 Verastegui Aranda’s habeas 

application in this case.
04-23-00389-CR

- 4 -

CONCLUSION

Because the trial court’s denial of Verastegui Aranda’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 Verastegui Aranda’s request, treat his appeal as a petition for writ 

of mandamus. Finally, we deny without prejudice Verastegui Aranda’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