Ex Parte Jose Pedro Aguillen Arteaga v. .

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 26, 2024
• Docket: 04-23-01045-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-23-01045-CR

EX PARTE Jose Pedro AGUILLEN-ARTEAGA

From the County Court, Maverick County, Texas Trial Court No. 30868 Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 26, 2024

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Appellant, Jose Pedro Aguillen-Arteaga, appeals from the denial of his pretrial application

for writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, treat the appeal as a

petition for writ of mandamus at Aguillen-Arteaga’s request, and deny his mandamus petition.

BACKGROUND

Aguillen-Arteaga, a noncitizen, was arrested under Operation Lone Star and charged with

the misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass. On March 10, 2023, Aguillen-Arteaga filed an

application for writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the criminal trespass charge because, he

alleged, the State engaged in selective prosecution, in violation of his right to equal protection,

when it decided to charge him. On March 28, 2023, the trial court issued an order stating, “the 04-23-01045-CR

Application is denied without issuing writ.” Aguillen-Arteaga timely filed a notice of appeal on

April 19, 2023. 1

On December 12, 2023, we issued an order notifying Aguillen-Arteaga that it appears we

lack jurisdiction over this appeal and that we would dismiss this appeal unless he filed a response

to our order showing that we have jurisdiction.

Aguillen-Arteaga filed a response on December 19, 2023, in which he argues that the trial

court denied his habeas application on the merits. Aguillen-Arteaga also requests, in the event we

determine that the trial court’s order was not on the merits, that we treat his appeal as a petition for

writ of mandamus.

JURISDICTION

There is no right to an appeal when a trial court refuses to issue a habeas writ or dismisses

or denies a habeas application without ruling on the merits of the applicant’s claims. See Ex parte

Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Ex parte Molina Valencia, — S.W.3d

—, No. 04-23-01044-CR, 2024 WL 1642923, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio April 17, 2024, no

pet. h.) (en banc). “Thus, where the record does not show that the trial court ruled on the merits of

the application for writ of habeas corpus, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.” Molina Valencia,

2024 WL 1642923, at *1 (quoting Ex parte Blunston, No. 04-12-00657-CV, 2013 WL 3874471,

at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 24, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication);

citing Ex parte Bowers, 36 S.W.3d 926, 927 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. ref’d); Ex parte Miller,

931 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, no pet.)).

Here, the trial court did not issue a writ, and the trial court’s order simply states that “the

Application is denied without issuing writ”—language we have previously held does not suggest

1 For reasons that do not appear in the record, the notice of appeal was not filed in this court until December 1, 2023.

-2- 04-23-01045-CR

a ruling on the merits. E.g., id. at *2 (citing In re Martinez-Jimenez, No. 04-23-00547-CR, 2023

WL 7005866, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 25, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not

designated for publication); In re Lara Belmontes, 675 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

2023, orig. proceeding)). Further, no reporter’s record has been filed, and nothing in the record

shows that the trial court held any hearings related to Aguillen-Arteaga’s habeas application or the

merits thereof or otherwise considered any evidence related to the application.

Consequently, nothing in our review of the entire record reflects that the trial court

considered or expressed an opinion on the merits of Aguillen-Arteaga’s habeas claims. 2 See id.;

Ex parte Garcia, 683 S.W.3d 467, 473 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, no pet.) (en banc). We

therefore conclude that the trial court did not rule on the merits of Aguillen-Arteaga’s habeas

application, and we lack jurisdiction to review his appeal. See Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d at 394;

Molina Valencia, 2024 WL 1642923, at *2; Garcia, 683 S.W.3d at 473.

REQUEST TO TREAT HABEAS APPEAL AS A MANDAMUS PETITION

We may, in certain circumstances, treat an appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus, if

specifically requested to do so by the appellant. See Molina Valencia, 2024 WL 1642923, at *2.

As stated above, Aguillen-Arteaga specifically requests that we construe his appeal as a mandamus

petition if we determine the trial court’s order is not appealable. We will therefore treat Aguillen-

Arteaga’s appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus.

2 In his December 19, 2023 response, Aguillen-Arteaga argues that the trial court’s orders in other cases show that the trial court considered the merits of his habeas application in its order in this case. We, however, “may not consider factual assertions that are outside the record.” Whitehead v. State, 130 S.W.3d 866, 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); see Janecka v. State, 937 S.W.2d 456, 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (“It is a long standing principle that we cannot review contentions which depend upon factual assertions outside of the record.”). Nor may we consider evidence from the record of another case, unless we take judicial notice of our own records from “the same or related proceedings involving same or nearly same parties.” Turner v. State, 733 S.W.2d 218, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Therefore, we may not consider the records from other cases in determining whether the trial court ruled on the merits of Aguillen- Arteaga’s habeas application in this case.

-3- 04-23-01045-CR

After considering the petition and the record, we deny Aguillen-Arteaga’s request for

mandamus relief. See id. at *2–4.

CONCLUSION

Because the trial court’s denial of Aguillen-Arteaga’s habeas application was not based on

the merits, we lack jurisdiction to review his habeas appeal. We therefore dismiss his appeal for

want of jurisdiction and, at Aguillen-Arteaga’s request, treat his appeal as a petition for writ of

mandamus. Finally, we deny without prejudice Aguillen-Arteaga’s petition for writ of mandamus.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

DO NOT PUBLISH

-4-