Court Opinion

ID: 9907347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 09:09:11.46512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:25.507129
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-23-00211-CR

      EX PARTE DAVID MARTINEZ MARTINEZ

            On Appeal from the County Court
                Kinney County, Texas
               Trial Court No. 10464CR

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
        Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

        David Martinez Martinez appeals the trial court’s order denying his application for a writ

of habeas corpus. Because we are bound to follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals

in this transfer case, we must reverse the trial court’s order and remand the cause for further

proceedings.1

I.      Factual and Procedural Background

        As part of Operation Lone Star (OLS), Martinez, a noncitizen, was arrested for

trespassing on private property in Kinney County, Texas. He filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the criminal charge based on a violation of his rights under

the United States Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and the Texas Constitution’s Equal

Rights Amendment. See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV; TEX. CONST. art. 1, § 3(a). Specifically,

Martinez argued that the State’s selective prosecution of men, and not similarly situated women,

for criminal trespass as part of OLS violated his state and federal equal protection rights.

        In response, “[t]he State stipulate[d] that women are not prosecuted for trespass as part of

Operation Lone Star, even when they are found trespassing.” Martinez’s application included

the affidavit of Tom Schmerber, the Sheriff of Maverick County, Texas, who swore that he “was

told by [the Department of Public Safety] that only men would be arrested on criminal trespass

charges” and that “no women would be arrested for criminal trespass.” Schmerber added, “I was

1
 Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme
Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). We follow the
precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals in deciding this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
                                                       2
told by [the Department of Public Safety] it was their policy that women would not be arrested

for criminal trespass.”

         Without conducting an evidentiary hearing, on September 18, 2023, the trial court denied

Martinez’s application for a writ of habeas corpus stating, “[U]pon review of the Application

allegations and the Court taking Judicial Knowledge of the filings in this cause, the application

for Writ to bring the defendant to the Court is denied without further hearing[2] and requested

relief is denied.”3

II.      The Order Denying Habeas Relief Must Be Reversed Pursuant to the Precedent of
         the Fourth Court of Appeals

         Martinez argues that the trial court erred in denying his relief on his selective-prosecution

equal protection claim, emphasizing that his claim is cognizable. See Ex parte Antonio-Santiago,

No. 04-22-00628-CR, 2023 WL 5603201, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 30, 2023, no

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Ex parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d 696, 707,

713 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, pet. granted) (en banc)). This is “the same controlling

issue” reviewed by the San Antonio Court of Appeals in prior cases. Ex parte Barahona-Gomez,

2
 Although the order denied the matter “without further hearing,” the record establishes, and the State concedes, that
there was no evidentiary hearing.
3
 As a preliminary matter, we address our jurisdiction. The trial court’s order in this case specifies that it “(1) heard
and considered [Martinez’s] habeas application, (2) based its ruling on its [review] of the application” and its
allegations, “(3) denied it without an evidentiary hearing, and (4) explained its reasoning.” Ex parte Barahona-
Gomez, No. 04-23-00230-CR, 2023 WL 6285324, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 27, 2023, no pet.) (mem.
op., not designated for publication). As did the Fourth Court of Appeals in Ex parte Barahona-Gomez, we conclude
that the trial court ruled on the merits and that, as a result, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Id. (citing Ex parte
Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), superseded in part by statute as discussed in Ex parte
Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 395–96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), (“clarifying an appellate court has jurisdiction over an
appeal of a trial court’s denial of an application for writ of habeas corpus regardless of whether the trial court refuses
to issue the writ or conduct an evidentiary hearing if the trial court ‘under[takes] to rule on the merits of the
application’” (alteration in original))).
                                                            3
2023 WL 6285324, at *2 (citing Ex parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d at 708–09); see Ex parte

Antonio-Santiago, 2023 WL 5603201, at *2. Even so, “[w]ithout conducting an evidentiary

hearing, the trial court denied [Martinez’s] application for writ of habeas corpus asserting his

equal protection rights.”4 Ex parte Barahona-Gomez, 2023 WL 6285324, at *2.

        Following the decisions of the Fourth Court of Appeals, “we reverse and remand this

habeas proceeding for an evidentiary hearing to allow [Martinez] to present a prima facia [sic]

case of a selective-prosecution equal protection claim.” Id. “If [Martinez] satisfies his burden,

the State should then be allowed to present its evidence supporting why the State’s

discriminatory classification was justified . . . .” Id. (citing Ex parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d 696).

        “On remand, the trial court should make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law

setting out its rulings on whether [Martinez] met his prima facia [sic] case of a selective-

prosecution equal protection claim.” Id. at *3. “If [Martinez] satisfies his burden, the trial court

should make further findings of fact and conclusions of law whether the State met its burden of

proof to justify its discriminatory treatment of [Martinez] at the time of his arrest.” Id.

4
 According to the precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals, the trial court’s conclusion was incorrect. See id.
(citing Ex parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d at 716).
                                                      4
III.   Disposition

       We reverse the trial court’s order denying Martinez’s requested relief on his application

for a writ of habeas corpus and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with the

precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals.

                                            Jeff Rambin
                                            Justice

Date Submitted:       November 30, 2023
Date Decided:         December 1, 2023

Do Not Publish

                                               5