Opinion
PD-0439-24 PD-0499-24 PD-0941-24
12-11-2024
EX PARTE FERNANDO ALVAREZ BARRAGAN, RIGOBERTO SANCHEZ TRISTEN & ALEJANDRO RIVERA SAAVEDRA, Appellants
DO NOT PUBLISH
ON STATE'S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS KINNEY COUNTY
Yeary, J., dissented.
OPINION
PER CURIAM
In each of these cases, Appellant was arrested for trespassing on private property. See Tex. Penal Code § 30.05(a). He filed a pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the State was selectively prosecuting him in violation of his equal protection rights. In each case, the trial court denied relief, Appellant appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the trial court's ruling denying relief.
Ex parte Barragan, No. 05-24-00073-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas March 27, 2024); Ex parte Tristen, No. 05-24-00217-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas May 8, 2024); Ex parte Saavedra, No. 05-24-00216-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas August 8, 2024).
The State has filed a petition for discretionary review in each case, arguing that the court of appeals erred in following the San Antonio Court of Appeals' decision in Ex parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2023). We recently handed down our opinion in Ex parte Aparicio, No. PD-0461-23,___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. October 9, 2024), in which we held that Aparicio's selective prosecution claim was cognizable in a pretrial habeas application. We also held that Aparicio did not make a prima facie showing that he was arrested and prosecuted because of his gender.
Consistent with our opinion in Aparicio, we grant review on our own motion of the following ground in each case:
Did Appellant make a prima facie showing that he was arrested and prosecuted because of his gender?Accordingly, in each case, we vacate the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to that court in light of our opinion in Aparicio. The State's petitions are refused. No motions for rehearing will be entertained, and the Clerk is instructed to immediately issue mandate.