Court Opinion

ID: 9375577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 13:06:47.976295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:00.018418
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                     San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                        No. 04-22-00258-CR

                             EX PARTE Luis Miguel Ramirez PEREZ

                            From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas
                                      Trial Court No. 10366CR
                             Honorable Roland Andrade, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Sitting:          Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 22, 2023

AFFIRMED

           Appellant Luis Miguel Ramirez Perez appeals from the trial court’s order denying habeas

relief. We affirm.

                                           BACKGROUND

           On August 28, 2021, Perez was arrested in Kinney County and charged with criminal

trespass. He was appointed counsel on August 29, 2021, and alleges he was released on personal

bond. On April 14, 2022, the trial court issued a notice of setting for a pretrial hearing on April 29,

2022, and for a jury trial on May 9, 2022. The notice states: “Failure to appear may result in Bond

Forfeiture and a Warrant of Arrest.”

           Perez alleges that after he was released on bond, the United States government removed

him from this country.
                                                                                                       04-22-00258-CR

         Through counsel, Perez filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking dismissal

of the charges against him for purported violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the

United States Constitution and Articles I, sections 10 and 19, and V, section 1, of the Texas

Constitution alleging deprivations of due process and of his right to counsel. 1 He argued the State

coordinated his removal with the federal government, leaving him unable to return to the United

States for his trial setting.

         The trial court denied habeas relief, and Perez appealed.

                                                    DISCUSSION

         In Ex parte Dominguez Ortiz, we considered and rejected the argument that a noncitizen

habeas applicant, arrested on criminal trespass charges under Operation Lone Star, was entitled to

dismissal of the charges against him after being released on bond and removed from the country.

___ S.W.3d ___, No. 04-22-00260-CR, 2023 WL 1424651, at *7-8 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb

1, 2023, no pet. h.) (en banc) (op. on reh’g). We concluded that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment

claims the appellant asserted in that appeal were not cognizable by pretrial writ of habeas corpus.

Id. The claims Perez asserts in this case are similar to those we addressed in Dominguez Ortiz.

Therefore, for the reasons described in that opinion, we affirm the trial court’s order denying

habeas relief. 2

                                                            Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Do not publish

1
  Because Perez did not separately argue his state and federal constitutional claims or argue that the Texas Constitution
provides different or broader protections than the United States Constitution, we address appellant’s claims solely on
federal constitutional grounds. See Bohannan v. State, 546 S.W.3d 166, 179 n.7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); Jackson v.
State, 992 S.W.2d 469, 475 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
2
  We deny the State’s “Motion for Involuntary Dismissal of the Instant Appeal Based on the False Impression Created
by Appellant’s Pleadings and Argument,” and the State’s motion to strike Perez’s reply brief. See Dominguez Ortiz,
2023 WL 1424651, at *4 n.2, *7 n.7.
                                                          -2-