Opinion
04-23-00164-CR
11-27-2024
The STATE of Texas, Appellant v. Raul Antonio SANTISO, Appellee
From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CRB000395L2 Honorable Leticia Martinez, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice, Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice, Beth Watkins, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
The State appeals the trial court's order granting Appellee, Raul Antonio Santiso, habeas relief. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the trial court's order, render judgment dismissing Santiso's habeas application, and reinstate the information charging Santiso with the misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass.
BACKGROUND
As part of Operation Lone Star, Santiso, a noncitizen, was arrested for and charged by information with the misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass.
On December 22, 2022, Santiso filed an application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus. In his application, Santiso sought dismissal of his underlying criminal case with prejudice because, he alleged, the "Complaint and Information are defective."
The trial court held a hearing on Santiso's application on January 6, 2023.
On February 9, 2023, the trial court issued an order stating, "came on to be heard Applicant's [Application for Pretrial] Writ of Habeas Corpus and relief from the case under this cause number is hereby GRANTED."
The trial court clerk filed Santiso's habeas application as a document in the same cause number as the underlying criminal proceeding. "[A] habeas proceeding is a separate proceeding from a criminal prosecution." Ex parte Sheffield, 685 S.W.3d 86, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023); see Ex parte Carter, 849 S.W.2d 410, 411 n.2 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 1993, pet. ref'd). As a result, Santiso's habeas application should have been "docketed separately from the substantive cause and given a different cause number." Carter, 849 S.W.2d at 411 n.2. Nevertheless, it is clear from the trial court's order that it granted Santiso's request for habeas relief in the habeas proceeding-in which Santiso had requested that the trial court dismiss the underlying criminal case with prejudice-and, in doing so, effectively dismissed the criminal charges in the underlying criminal case. See State v. Lopez-Miranda, No. 04-23-00153-CR, 2024 WL 3954213, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 28, 2024, no pet. h.).
The State timely appealed.
COGNIZABILITY
In its third issue on appeal, the State contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted habeas relief to Santiso, because Santiso's habeas claim "is simply an improper challenge to the sufficiency of the complaint." We agree.
A grant of pretrial habeas relief "is an extraordinary remedy." Ex parte Ingram, 533 S.W.3d 887, 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (citing Ex parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d 71, 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)). "Consequently, whether a claim is even cognizable on pretrial habeas is a threshold issue that should be addressed before the merits of the claim may be resolved. If a non- cognizable claim is resolved on the merits in a pretrial habeas [proceeding], then the pretrial writ has been misused." Ellis, 309 S.W.3d at 79 (internal citation omitted); see Ex parte Hammons, 631 S.W.3d 715, 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) ("The court of appeals should have addressed cognizability as a threshold issue before reaching the merits of Appellant's claim.") (citing Ellis, 309 S.W.3d at 79).
"[P]retrial habeas corpus is available 'only in very limited circumstances.'" Ex parte Sheffield, 685 S.W.3d at 93 (quoting Ex parte Smith, 178 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)). "And, ordinarily, pretrial habeas is not available to 'test the sufficiency of the complaint, information, or indictment.'" Ex parte Doster, 303 S.W.3d 720, 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (quoting Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)); see Ellis, 309 S.W.3d at 79. Pretrial habeas may be available, however, "when the applicant alleges that the statute under which he or she is prosecuted is unconstitutional on its face" or if "the pleading, on its face, shows that the offense charged is barred by limitations." Weise, 55 S.W.3d at 620; see Doster, 303 S.W.3d at 724-25.
We previously considered, in State v. Lopez-Miranda, 2024 WL 3954213, at *2-3, a State's appeal arising out of the same incident and involving the same habeas claims, the same appellate issue, and the same trial court hearing and determined that the habeas claims were not cognizable. Santiso's habeas application asserts that the "Complaint and Information are defective" for the same six reasons listed in the habeas application of the appellee in Lopez-Miranda: (1) the complaint and information do not "allege the true and correct owner of the property," (2) "they fail to state the offense with which the Defendant is charged in plain and intelligible words," (3) "the property alleged for Criminal Trespass is not properly described in the charging instruments with conflicting locations," (4) "they fail to allege a culpable mental state for the offense charged," (5) "they do not specify with particularity . . . which disaster declaration is being alleged," and (6) they "provide conflicting locations, one of which presents that [Santiso] is innocent of the alleged Criminal Trespass charge because it is public property," which "indicates that these charging instruments have no merit against" him. Id. As in Lopez-Miranda, "[e]ach of these arguments challenges the sufficiency of the complaint and information; none contend that the criminal trespass statute is unconstitutional on its face or that the information shows, on its face, that the criminal trespass charged is barred by limitations." Id. Thus, for the reasons enunciated in Lopez-Miranda, we conclude that none of the claims Santiso asserted in his habeas application are cognizable in a pretrial habeas proceeding. Id.; see also Doster, 303 S.W.3d at 724; Weise, 55 S.W.3d at 620-21; Woods v. State, 153 S.W.3d 413, 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); State v. Colin-Tapio, 679 S.W.3d 263, 265 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2023, no pet.).
Santiso submitted a probable cause affidavit as an attachment in support of his habeas application. In the affidavit, the officer described an incident involving Santiso and the appellee in Lopez-Miranda.
The hearing in the trial court involved three habeas applications, including applications filed by Santiso and the appellee in Lopez-Miranda.
In his appellate brief, Santiso argues that "at its core" his habeas application "is a probable cause challenge" and that "[t]he use of the pre-trial writ to challenge the State's authority to detain on inadequate probable cause was proper." Santiso's claims challenge the sufficiency of the charging documents. No claim makes reference to his arrest or to probable cause, nor presents a challenge to the State's probable cause for his arrest. A challenge to the sufficiency of a charging document is a separate and distinct claim from a challenge to the sufficiency of the probable cause to support an arrest. See Lopez-Miranda, 2024 WL 3954213, at *2 n.2. We do not consider Santiso's argument that a challenge to the probable cause to arrest an individual may be raised in a pretrial habeas proceeding.
Because none of Santiso's claims are cognizable in a pretrial habeas proceeding, we sustain the State's third issue. We do not reach the remainder of the State's issues.
CONCLUSION
Having determined that Santiso failed to raise any claims that are cognizable in a pretrial habeas proceeding, we reverse the trial court's order granting Santiso habeas relief, render judgment dismissing Santiso's habeas application, and reinstate the information charging Santiso with the misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass.