Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00609-CR

EX PARTE Cesar David DANIEL RAMON

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13995CR

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 10, 2024

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

DENIED

Appellant, Cesar David Daniel Ramon, 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 Daniel Ramon’s request, and deny his mandamus petition.

BACKGROUND

Daniel Ramon, a noncitizen, was arrested under Operation Lone Star and charged with the 

misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass. On April 10, 2023, Daniel Ramon 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 June 13, 2023, the trial court issued an order stating, “the Application is denied 

without hearing and the writ is not issued.” Daniel Ramon timely filed a notice of appeal.
04-23-00609-CR

- 2 -

On April 5, 2024, we issued an order notifying Daniel Ramon 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. 

Daniel Ramon filed a response on April 11, 2024, in which he argues that the trial court’s 

“order is appealable.” Daniel Ramon 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 hearing and the writ is not issued”—language we have previously 

held does not suggest a ruling on the merits. E.g., In re Saravia-Bonilla, No. 04-23-00637-CR, 

2023 WL 6850595, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 18, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication); see Molina Valencia, 2024 WL 1642923, at *2 (citing In re MartinezJimenez, 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 
04-23-00609-CR

- 3 -

113, 115 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 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 Daniel 

Ramon’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 Daniel Ramon’s habeas claims.1 See Molina 

Valencia, 2024 WL 1642923, at *2; 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 Daniel Ramon’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, Daniel Ramon 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 Daniel 

Ramon’s appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus. 

After considering the petition and the record, we deny Daniel Ramon’s request for 

mandamus relief. See id. at *2–4.

1 Daniel Ramon 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 Daniel Ramon’s habeas application in this case.
04-23-00609-CR

- 4 -

CONCLUSION

Because the trial court’s denial of Daniel Ramon’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 Daniel Ramon’s request, treat his appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus. 

Finally, we deny without prejudice Daniel Ramon’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