Court Opinion

ID: 9780924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 08:13:57.552009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:16.658683
License: Public Domain

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

                   No. 06-23-00134-CR

  EX PARTE ANGEL ALBERTO RUIZ VALLESTEROS

            On Appeal from the County Court
                Kinney County, Texas
               Trial Court No. 13329CR

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

        Angel Alberto Ruiz Vallesteros appeals the denial of his application for a pretrial writ of

habeas corpus. Vallesteros claimed in his application that the State’s policy of arresting and

prosecuting men, but not women, for trespass violated the equal protection guarantees in the

United States and Texas Constitutions.1 The trial court denied the writ without a hearing on

April 24, 2023.

        Vallesteros urges this Court to treat his appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus in the

event we find that the trial court’s order is not appealable. Because we find that the trial court’s

order is not appealable and because we are not authorized to entertain Vallesteros’s claim of

alternative mandamus relief, we dismiss this matter for want of jurisdiction.

I.      The Trial Court’s Order is Not Appealable

        The trial court’s “Order on Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus” stated:

               ON this day came on to be heard the Application for Pretrial Writ of
        Habeas Corpus filed in the above entitled and number cause. The Court having
        considered same is of the opinion same should be:

                  X       the Application is denied without issuing the writ[.]

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

                        the Application is granted with an order issuing the writ, and the
        merits will be heard by submission of evidence . . . .

1
 This case was originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio. It was transferred to this Court
by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. As a
result, we follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
                                                        2
        Our sister court addressed the issue of whether an identical order was appealable in In re

Rogelio Lopez Perez, No. 04-23-00294-CR, 2023 WL 5270488, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

Aug. 16, 2023, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.). In that case, the trial court also placed

an “X” in the blank before the words, “the Application is denied without issuing the writ.” Id.

As in this case, “[t]he trial court’s order specifically states [that] the trial court based its ruling on

relator’s application.”    Id.   Also as in this case, “the order shows [that] the trial court

affirmatively declined to issue a writ, hold an evidentiary hearing, or submit written evidence

when it did not select the blanks corresponding with [those] actions.” Id. Here, as in In re

Perez, nothing in the record indicates that the trial court issued a writ or held an evidentiary

hearing.

        “Nothing in the order or record suggests that the trial court ruled on the merits of

[Vallesteros’s] equal protection claim.” Id. at *2. “If the trial court had ruled on the merits of

[Vallesteros’s] habeas application, then the proper remedy would be to appeal the order denying

relator’s habeas application—not to seek mandamus review.” Id. (citing Ex parte Villanueva,

252 S.W.3d 392, 395 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“[A]n appeal may be prosecuted when a judge

issues a ruling on the merits.”); Ex parte Sifuentes, 639 S.W.3d 842, 846 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2022, pet. ref’d) (“If the record shows that the trial court heard evidence and

addressed the merits, the result is appealable.”)).

        Because the trial court did not issue a writ or rule on the merits, the trial court’s order is

not appealable.

                                                    3
II.     Mandamus Relief

        Vallesteros contends that, as a matter of law, his equal protection claim is cognizable as a

pretrial writ because “‘a conviction is void under the Equal Protection Clause if the prosecutor

deliberately charged the defendant on account of his race’ or other prohibited classification like

gender.” Ex parte Aparicio, No. 04-22-00623-CR, 2023 WL 4095939, at *10 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio June 21, 2023, pet. filed) (en banc) (alteration in original) (quoting Vasquez v.

Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 264 (1986)). Indeed, our sister court in Ex parte Aparicio determined

that, if the appellant’s “selective-prosecution claim on the basis of equal protection has merit,

any conviction resulting from a trial would be void, and he would be entitled to release.” Id.

(citing Vasquez, 474 U.S. at 264; Lovill v. State, 287 S.W.3d 65, 81 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–

Edinburg 2008), rev’d on other grounds, 319 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)). Vallesteros

therefore asks this Court to order the trial court “to issue [the writ] and hear his [habeas claims].”

This we cannot do.

        As a transferee Court, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for a

writ of mandamus against a San Antonio trial court.                See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 22.221(b)(1)–(3) (empowering appellate courts to issue writs against courts within the court of

appeals district).

        Because the trial court’s order is not appealable, we have no jurisdiction to entertain

Vallesteros’s appeal. See Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 395 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008);

Ex parte Sifuentes, 639 S.W.3d 842, 846 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2022, pet. ref’d). Because

                                                  4
we have no jurisdiction over Vallesteros’s alternative mandamus petition, we are without

jurisdiction over this matter.

        As a result, we dismiss this matter for want of jurisdiction.2

                                                    Scott E. Stevens
                                                    Chief Justice

Date Submitted:           August 16, 2023
Date Decided:             August 25, 2023

Do Not Publish

2
On August 24, 2023, Vallesteros filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary stay of the trial court proceedings.
Given our disposition of this matter, that motion is denied.
                                                        5