Court Opinion

ID: 9375582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 13:06:50.842128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:00.017604
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                         No. 04-22-00353-CR

                            EX PARTE Andrez ZUNIGA-GUTIERREZ

                            From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas
                                      Trial Court No. 12108CR
                             Honorable Roland Andrade, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 22, 2023

AFFIRMED

           Appellant Andrez Zuniga-Gutierrez appeals the denial of his application for pretrial writ

of habeas corpus. We affirm.

                                             BACKGROUND

           On January 9, 2022, appellant Andrez Zuniga-Gutierrez was arrested in Kinney County

and charged with criminal trespass. He was appointed counsel and, on January 25, 2022, was

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

on April 22, 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.”

           Zuniga-Gutierrez alleges that after he was released on bond, the United States government

removed him from this country.
                                                                                                    04-22-00353-CR

          Through counsel, Zuniga-Gutierrez 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 Zuniga-Gutierrez 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 (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. at *7–

8. The claims Zuniga-Gutierrez asserts in this case are similar to those we addressed in Dominguez

Ortiz. For the reasons described in that opinion, we affirm the trial court’s order denying habeas

relief.

                                                          Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

1
 Because Zuniga-Gutierrez 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-