Opinion
PD-0107-24 PD-0411-24 PD-0412-24 PD-0413-24
12-11-2024
EX PARTE WILMER RAMOS-MORALES, EX PARTE ALVARO ORDUNA-ARELLANO, LUIS FERNANDO REYES-JUAREZ & MIGUEL ANGEL MELO-SANCHEZ, Appellants
DO NOT PUBLISH
ON STATE'S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE EL PASO 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 and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the case.
Ex parte Ramos-Morales, No. 08-23-00282-CR (Tex. App.-El Paso December 20, 2023); Ex parte Orduna-Arellano, No. 08-23-00233-CR (Tex. App.-El Paso January 12, 2024); Ex parte Reyes-Juarez, No. 08-23-00295-CR (Tex. App.-El Paso January 12, 2024); Ex parte Melo-Sanchez, No. 08-23-00301-CR (Tex. App.-El Paso January 12, 2024).
The State has filed a petition for discretionary review in each case, challenging the court of appeals' holding that Appellant's claim is cognizable in a pretrial habeas application. In cause number PD-0107-24, the State also argues that the court of appeals erred by ordering Appellant's discharge rather than remanding the case for further development of the record. 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.