Court Opinion

ID: 9554298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 17:08:52.469716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:02.062442
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                                 OPINION

                                         No. 04-22-00737-CR

                                         The STATE of Texas,
                                              Appellant

                                                   v.

                                Josue Isay DEL CAMPO-CHAVEZ,
                                             Appellee

                     From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas
                                       Trial Court No. 11,797
                             Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 2, 2023

AFFIRMED

           As part of Operation Lone Star, Josue Isay Del Campo-Chavez, a noncitizen, was arrested

for trespassing on private property in Zapata County. He filed an application for writ of habeas

corpus seeking dismissal of the criminal charge based on a violation of his state and federal rights

to equal protection. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted his requested

relief. The State appeals. We affirm.
                                                                                     04-22-00737-CR

                                          BACKGROUND

       Since March 2021, by the direction of Governor Abbott, the Texas Department of Public

Safety has been committed to deterring illegal border crossings by arresting migrants for

misdemeanor trespass or felony human smuggling, depending on the circumstances of the arrests.

The State has charged the cases into various courts for prosecution. The endeavor is called

Operation Lone Star. As part of OLS, Appellee Del Campo was arrested for criminal trespass.

See TEX. PENAL CODE § 30.05(a). He then filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus,

arguing that the State was selectively prosecuting him in violation of his equal protection rights.

       At Del Campo’s habeas corpus hearing on September 14, 2022, Claudia Molina of the

Lubbock Private Defender’s Office testified that on August 5, 2022, Del Campo was arrested for

criminal trespass as part of OLS. Sergeant Brittany Pacheco of the Segovia Unit in the Hidalgo

County Jail testified that Del Campo was released from that jail after being detained there. Release

documentation shows that Del Campo was released on a cash bond to the U.S. Border Patrol.

       Molina testified as to the process through which an individual who is arrested for criminal

trespass under OLS obtains appointment of counsel. According to Molina’s testimony, the

Lubbock Private Defender’s Office (“LPDO”) was awarded a grant by the Texas Indigent Defense

Commission to appoint counsel to represent individuals who have been brought before a magistrate

or are being held at detention facilities because of OLS. That is, when an individual is arrested

and brought before a magistrate, his paperwork is sent to the LPDO for appointment of counsel.

Molina testified that this review and appointment process includes the OLS cases from six

counties: Webb, Jim Hogg, Maverick, Zapata, Kinney, and Val Verde. According to Molina, the

primary charge of appointment for the LPDO as to OLS is criminal trespass. They have also been

appointed in human smuggling cases. As part of OLS, LPDO first began appointing counsel in

the summer of 2021.

                                                -2-
                                                                                       04-22-00737-CR

       Molina testified that she is currently an assignment supervisor for OLS cases and was

previously an OLS client advocate. She stated that she has handled over a thousand calls as a

client advocate, conducted Zoom meeting with clients, visited clients in jail, and she has observed

court proceedings on a weekly basis. She testified that she is unaware of any women who have

been prosecuted for misdemeanor trespass as part of OLS.

       Molina stated that she also generated a report of OLS cases that were appointed counsel

through the LPDO as of Del Campo’s hearing. There were a little over six thousand, five thousand

of which were misdemeanor trespass cases. None of the misdemeanor trespass cases charged

women.

       As for Zapata County specifically, the LPDO had begun defending cases there as of August

6, 2022. Molina confirmed that there were no women charged with trespass along with Del Campo

or even in the week that he was arrested.

       Molina testified that the only OLS cases charging women have been felony human

smuggling cases.

       The trial court then granted Del Campo’s requested relief. The State appealed.

                                       STANDARD OF REVIEW

       “When we review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny habeas corpus relief, we view

the facts ‘in the light most favorable to the trial judge’s ruling and should uphold it absent an abuse

of discretion.’” Ex parte Quintana, 346 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, pet. ref’d)

(citing Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317, 324 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)).

                                            DISCUSSION

       In a recent opinion, Ex parte Aparicio, we considered the argument that male defendants

charged with misdemeanor trespass as part of OLS were being selectively prosecuted along gender

lines in violation of their federal and state constitutional rights to equal protection. See Ex parte

                                                 -3-
                                                                                      04-22-00737-CR

Aparicio, __S.W.3d__, No. 04-22-00623-CR, 2023 WL 4095939, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

June 21, 2023, no pet. h.). We concluded that the appellant had raised a cognizable issue by pretrial

writ of habeas corpus and met his burden of showing a prima facie claim for selective prosecution

on the basis of gender discrimination. Id. at *13. We reversed and remanded for the State to

justify the gender discrimination. Id. The claims the State asserts in this case mirror the issues we

addressed in Ex parte Aparicio, and we apply its precedent. For the reasons described in that

opinion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.

               COGNIZABILITY OF AN AS-APPLIED HABEAS CORPUS CHALLENGE

       The State has argued that as-applied constitutional challenges are not cognizable for

pretrial habeas corpus relief, citing Ex parte Perry, 483 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). The

State concedes three important exceptions to this general rule: double jeopardy, bail, and

separation of powers. See id. at 896; Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

The reasoning underlying these exceptions directly applies to our conclusion in this and other equal

protection appeals that have resulted from OLS cases: “[C]ertain types of as-applied claims may

be raised by pretrial habeas because the particular constitutional right at issue in the as-applied

challenge is the type that would be effectively undermined if not vindicated prior to trial.” Ex

parte Perry, 483 S.W.3d at 896; accord Ex parte Aparicio, 2023 WL 4095939, at *10 (citing Ex

parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 619‒20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). In Ex parte Aparicio, we concluded

that the appellant’s equal protection claim represented the type of as-applied challenge that would

be effectively undermined if not vindicated prior to trial. See Ex parte Aparicio, 2023 WL 405939,

at *10. Based on our holding in Ex parte Aparicio, we overrule the State’s first issue. See Ex

parte Aparicio, 2023 WL 4095939, at *8‒11.

                                                -4-
                                                                                         04-22-00737-CR

    TRIAL COURT’S JURISDICTION TO GRANT HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF IF NO WRIT ISSUED

        The State argues that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the merits of Del Campo’s

application for habeas corpus relief if it did not first explicitly issue a writ. Del Campo argues that

the State failed to preserve the issue and that it is not jurisdictional, i.e., not able to be raised for

the first time on appeal. We agree that there is no jurisdictional requirement for the trial court to

explicitly issue a writ before ruling on the merits of a petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief.

See Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), superseded by statute on

other grounds as stated in Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 397 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Ex

parte Jagneaux, 315 S.W.3d 155, 156 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010, no pet.). In determining that

there is no jurisdictional requirement for the trial court to explicitly issue a writ, we have reached

and dispelled the crux of the State’s argument. See Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d at 869; Ex parte

Jagneaux, 315 S.W.3d at 156. Accordingly, we need not address Del Campo’s waiver argument.

The State’s second issue is overruled.

                                  SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

        The State argues that Del Campo was required to demonstrate improper prosecutorial

motive and failed to do so. As we noted in Ex parte Aparicio, Del Campo carried the burden of

demonstrating that his prosecution was motivated by a discriminatory purpose, meaning that “the

government’s selection of the defendant for prosecution was based on an impermissible

consideration….” See Ex parte Aparicio, 2023 WL 4095939, at *7. We noted that “[s]electing a

defendant for prosecution on the basis of sex is an impermissible consideration.” Id. Here,

contrary to the State’s argument, Del Campo met his burden by showing that the State only

prosecuted men for misdemeanor trespass under OLS. See id. at *12. Based on Ex parte Aparicio,

we overrule the State’s third issue.

                                                  -5-
                                                                                    04-22-00737-CR

                                   DEPRIVATION OF COUNSEL

       Finally, the State argues against Del Campo’s argument to the trial court that he was

effectively deprived of counsel because of OLS and his resulting deportation. We need not reach

this issue because we uphold the trial court’s ruling based on the State’s selective prosecution of

men for misdemeanor criminal trespass under OLS. See Ex parte Aparicio, 2023 WL 4095939;

Ex parte Quintana, 346 S.W.3d at 684.

                                          CONCLUSION

       Applying Ex parte Aparicio, we conclude that the State failed to demonstrate that the trial

court abused its discretion in granting habeas corpus relief for Del Campo. The trial court’s

judgment is affirmed.

                                                 Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Publish

                                               -6-