Court Opinion

ID: 9839180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 13:08:32.037453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:33.231585
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                        San Antonio, Texas

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                            No. 04-23-00307-CR

                          EX PARTE Jose Francisco CASTILLO-RAMOS

                                            Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 6, 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 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.

           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

1
  This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 4021, styled State of Texas v. Jose Francisco Castillo-Ramos, pending in
the County Court, Maverick County, Texas, the Honorable Susan D. Reed presiding.
                                                                                       04-23-00307-CR

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, orig. proceeding) (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.

The trial court did not select the following options:

                      the Application is granted, an order issuing the writ and hearing to be
               held            .

                                                  -2-
                                                                                        04-23-00307-CR

                      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

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

                                                  -3-
                                                                                                       04-23-00307-CR

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); 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. 2 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

2
  Relator raises an additional argument that he was provided insufficient notice of the April 4, 2023 hearing and,
therefore, he should not be required to attend in-person. Because this argument is not necessary to the final disposition
of this case, we do not address it. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

                                                          -4-