Ex Parte Juan Gabriel Colorado Carrillo v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 22, 2023
• Docket: 04-22-00259-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00259-CR

EX PARTE Juan Gabriel COLORADO CARRILLO

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas Trial Court No. 10367CR Honorable Roland Andrade, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 22, 2023

AFFIRMED

Appellant Juan Gabriel Colorado Carrillo appeals the denial of his application for pretrial

writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On August 28, 2021, appellant Juan Gabriel Colorado Carrillo was arrested in Kinney

County and charged with criminal trespass. He was appointed counsel and, on October 1, 2021,

was released on bond. On April 14, 2022, the trial court issued a notice of setting for a pretrial

hearing on April 29, 2022, and for a jury trial on May 9, 2022. The notice states: “Failure to appear

may result in Bond Forfeiture and a Warrant of Arrest.”

Colorado Carrillo alleges that after he was released on bond, the United States government

removed him from this country. 04-22-00259-CR

Through counsel, Colorado Carrillo filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking

dismissal of the charges against him for purported violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments

to the United States Constitution and Articles I, sections 10 and 19, and V, section 1, of the Texas

Constitution, alleging deprivations of due process and of his right to counsel. 1 He argued the State

coordinated his removal with the federal government, leaving him unable to return to the United

States for his trial setting.

The trial court denied habeas relief, and Colorado Carrillo appealed. On May 4, 2022, we

stayed all proceedings in the trial court pending our decision on appeal.

DISCUSSION

In Ex parte Dominguez Ortiz, we considered and rejected the argument that a noncitizen

habeas applicant, arrested on criminal trespass charges under Operation Lone Star, was entitled to

dismissal of the charges against him after being released on bond and removed from the country.

___ S.W.3d ___, No. 04-22-00260-CR, 2023 WL 1424651 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 1, 2023,

no pet. h.) (en banc) (op. on reh’g). We concluded that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims the

appellant asserted in that appeal were not cognizable by pretrial writ of habeas corpus. Id. at *7–

8. The claims Colorado Carrillo asserts in this case are similar to those we addressed in Dominguez

Ortiz. For the reasons described in that opinion, we affirm the trial court’s order denying habeas

relief and lift the May 4, 2022 stay. 2

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 Because Colorado Carrillo did not separately argue his state and federal constitutional claims or argue that the Texas Constitution provides different or broader protections than the United States Constitution, we address appellant’s claims solely on federal constitutional grounds. See Bohannan v. State, 546 S.W.3d 166, 179 n.7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); Jackson v. State, 992 S.W.2d 469, 475 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 2 We deny the State’s “Motion for Involuntary Dismissal of the Instant Appeal Based on the False Impression Created by Appellant’s Pleadings and Argument,” and the State’s motion to strike Colorado Carrillo’s reply brief. See Dominguez Ortiz, 2022 WL 17480465 at *4 n.2, *7 n.7.

-2-