Opinion
04-23-00334-CR
02-21-2024
IN RE CERVANTES, et al.
DO NOT PUBLISH
This proceeding arises out of eighty-five civil bond forfeiture cases involving the State of Texas and the following defendants and their trial cause numbers: Gilberto Marvaez Cervantes, Cause No. 1071; Adin Hernandez Lopez, Cause No. 1072; Ado Mendez-Rodriguez, Cause No. 1073; Abel Mario Olan-Elias, Cause No. 1074; Christopher Cuacil Perez, Cause No. 1077; Jose Adolfo Mendoza Loyola, Cause No. 1079; Jose Eduardo Gonzalez Maldonado, Cause No. 1080; Jose Inocencio Gallegos Mendieta, Cause No. 1081; Juan Manueal Cruz Velazquez, Cause No. 1082; Ernesto Rafael Mendoza Sanchez, Cause No. 1083; Juan Pablo Centeno Sanchez, Cause No. 1084; Edgar Ivan Morando Rodriguez, Cause No. 1085; Marvel Morales Mejia, Cause No. 1086; Gerardo Antonio Gaona Sotero, Cause No. 1087; Victor Robles Vazquez, Cause No. 1089, Juan Jesus Palomino Vargas, Cause No. 1090; Joel Salaya Garcia, Cause No. 1092; Yovani Arias Jimenez, Cause No. 1093; Francisco Alejandro Dominguez-Gutierrez, Cause No. 1095; Benjamin Gonzalez-Ledesma, Cause No. 1098; Jaime Ochoa-Quiroz, Cause No. 1100; Jose Fernando Olvera-Hiraldo, Cause No.1101; Jose de Luna Puentes, Cause No. 1104; Jose Rodolfo Tellez Gayosso, Cause No. 1105; Pedro Perez Gomez, Cause No. 1106; Darwin Alejandro Rodriguez Crespo, Cause No. 1107; Natan Morales-Tomas, Cause No. 1114; Daniel Cordova Jimenez, Cause No. 1116; Roger David Murillo, Cause No. 1117; Esteban Ramirez Palacios, Cause No. 1119; David Martinez Martinez, Cause No. 1120; Herminio Ruiz Gomez, Cause No. 1121; Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Cause No. 1122; Luis Ramiro Gonzalez-Ramirez, Cause No. 1123; Santos Gonzalez-Ortega, Cause No. 1124; Prisciliano Perez-Sanchez, Cause No. 1126; Angel Lopez-Arellano, Cause No. 1136; Luis Enrique Arellano-Rubio, Cause No. 1137; Simon Cruz Vega, Cause No. 1138; Juan Antonio Gomez-Torres, Cause No. 1139; Jorge Ubaldo Rivera Escobedo, Cause No. 1140; Luis Gonzalez Martinez, Cause No. 1141; Jose Gutierrez Ramos, Cause No. 1142; Jose Antonio Gomez Martinez, Cause No. 1143; Raul Castellanos Garcia, Cause No. 1144; Juan Rodriguez-Hernandez, Cause No. 1145; Jose de Jesus Munoz Barrientos, Cause No. 1147; Ciro Erasmo Hernandez Rivera, Cause No. 1148; Daniel Hernandez Martinez, Cause No. 1151; Rigoberto Moreno Cruz, Cause No. 1156; Jose Santos Gonzalez Gonzalez, Cause No. 1170; Ivan Martinez Diaz, Cause No. 1173; Jesus Antonio Alvarez Mendez, Cause No. 1180; Oscar Jose Melchor Gutierrez, Cause No. 1186; Jorge Lopez Lopez, Cause No. 1194; David Torres May, Cause No. 1221; Manuel Gamas Enrique, Cause No. 1227; Gregorio Sanchez Martinez, Cause No. 1228; Juan Leonardo Rubio Jaime, Cause No. 1229; Bryan Sanchez Coronado, Cause No. 1233, Henri Garcia Cruz, Cause No. 1234; Juan Aboytes Aguilar, Cause No. 1235; J. Piedad Ramirez Ramirez, Cause No. 1243; Domingo Cansino Dominguez, Cause No. 1244; Ramon Aguilar Santis, Cause No. 1248; Arturo Lopez Laureno Lopez, Cause No. 1251; Juan Leonardo Rubio Jaime, Cause No. 1255; Darinel Nava Atrisco, Cause No. 1257; Dagoberto Escobar Nava, Cause No. 1258; Everildo Escalante-Diaz, Cause No. 1266; Juan Daniel Vazquez Olvera, Cause No. 1272; Emmanuel Garay-Gonzalez, Cause No. 1273; Jesus Uriel Alonso Garcia, Cause No. 1281; Lazaro Cruz Montiel, Cause No. 1282; Rodrigo Alejandro Alamanza Manriquez, Cause No. 1285; Rafael Sanchez Perez, Cause No. 1287; Merced Carretero Saenz, Cause No. 1290; Moises Carlos Montes, Cause No. 1298; Kelvin Jassiel Figueroa Salinas, Cause No. 1299; Jose Ricardo Gonzalez Garcia, Cause No. 1301; Jose Jesus Corona Martinez, Cause No. 1302; Jose Guadalupe Cardenas Puebla, Cause No. 1303; Yurdik Velazquez de Leon, Cause No. 1314; Gustavo Villanueva Rojas, Cause No. 1316; and Andres Aranda Damian, Cause No. 1317 all pending in the County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable David E. Garcia presiding.
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
On April 10, 2023, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The real party in interest filed a response to which relators replied. After considering the petition, the real party in interest's response, relators' reply, and this record, this court concludes relators are not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).