COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
EX PARTE: § No. 08-23-00228-CR
RODRIGO ALEJANDRO § Appeal from the
ALMANZA-MANRIQUEZ § The County Court
Appellant. § Of Kinney County, Texas
§ (TC# 12265CR)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Rodrigo Alejandro Almanza-Manriquez (Almanza-Manriquez) is a noncitizen
who was arrested under Operation Lone Star (OLS) and charged with the misdemeanor offense of
criminal trespass. Contending he was the subject of selective prosecution in violation of state and
federal constitutional equal protection principles, Almanza-Manriquez filed an application for
pretrial writ of habeas corpus requesting a habeas writ, evidentiary hearing, and dismissal of the
underlying charge. The trial court denied his application on the merits, and Almanza-Manriquez
appealed, contending the trial court erred in not granting his requested relief. For the reasons set
forth below, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for the trial court to dismiss the criminal
proceedings against him with prejudice.
1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Almanza-Manriquez’s arrest and his application for habeas relief
On March 6, 2021, Governor Greg Abbott directed the Texas Department of Public Safety
(DPS) to initiate OLS to “deter[] illegal border crossing and . . . prevent criminal activity along the
border.” Ex parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d 696, 701 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, pet. granted). As
part of OLS, Almanza-Manriquez was arrested for criminal trespass in Kinney County on January
16, 2022. On April 4, 2023, he filed an application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus seeking
dismissal of the criminal charge, arguing his rights had been violated under the United States
Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and the Texas Constitution’s Equal Rights Amendment, as
the State was selectively prosecuting men, and not similarly situated women, for criminal trespass
as part of OLS. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Tex. Const. art. I, § 3a. Almanza-Manriquez attached
several exhibits supporting his claim that the State had a policy of arresting only male noncitizens
for criminal trespass while referring similarly situated female noncitizens to Border Patrol. Among
the exhibits was a Notice of Stipulation the State filed in another OLS case in which it stipulated:
“women are not prosecuted for trespass as part of Operation Lone Star, even when they are found
trespassing.” He also provided an affidavit from the Maverick County Sheriff stating he was told
during a meeting with Texas DPS that “only men would be arrested for criminal trespass” pursuant
to the OLS policy and “it was their policy that women would not be arrested for criminal trespass.”
Finally, Almanza-Manriquez attached an affidavit from Claudia Molina, the assignment supervisor
for the Lubbock County Public Defender’s office, dated September 23, 2022, stating that based on
her review of the records, of the 5,000 noncitizens arrested at the border, “no women have ever been
appointed counsel for OLS misdemeanor trespass charges.” The State did not file a response to the
2 application.
On June 26, 2023, the trial court denied Almanza-Manriquez’s application. Almanza-
Manriquez filed an appeal to the Fourth Court of Appeals, which was then transferred to this Court
through a Texas Supreme Court docket equalization order. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3. As discussed
below, we follow the Fourth Court of Appeals’ precedent in resolving the appeal, as we are required
to do by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 41.3. 1 Id.
B. Aparicio and its progeny
On June 21, 2023, five days before the trial court denied Almanza-Manriquez’s application,
the Fourth Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Ex parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d 696. 2 In that case,
a noncitizen (Aparicio), who had been arrested for criminal trespass in Maverick County as part of
OLS, filed a similar application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the charge
against him, making an identical claim that the State was selectively prosecuting men under OLS in
violation of his State and federal constitutional rights. Id. at 701. Unlike the present case, however,
the trial court in Aparicio issued the writ and held a full evidentiary hearing on the question of
whether the State was engaging in selective prosecution. Id. at 701–06. The trial court denied the
writ on the merits, despite undisputed evidence that the State was criminally prosecuting only male
noncitizens for trespass under OLS, finding that Aparicio’s equal protection argument failed because
1 Rule 41.3 provides that: “In cases transferred by the Supreme Court from one court of appeals to another, the court of appeals to which the case is transferred must decide the case in accordance with the precedent of the transferor court under principles of stare decisis if the transferee court’s decision otherwise would have been inconsistent with the precedent of the transferor court. The court’s opinion may state whether the outcome would have been different had the transferee court not been required to decide the case in accordance with the transferor court's precedent.” Tex. R. App. P. 41.3. 2 The State does not contend that the trial court was unaware of the Fourth Court of Appeals’ holding in Aparicio when it ruled on Almanza-Manriquez’s application.
3 the State could prosecute women if it “chose to.” 3 Id. at 706.
On appeal, the Fourth Court of Appeals disagreed, finding Aparicio had met his initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of selective prosecution, i.e., that the State had a
“prosecutorial policy” which resulted in a “discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a
discriminatory purpose.” Id. at 713–14. The State then argued “‘the emergency situation on Texas’s
southern border’ justifies its discriminatory actions.” Id. at 716. However, the court of appeals noted
that the trial court never reached the merits of that issue, and it therefore reversed the trial court’s
denial of Aparicio’s application for a writ of habeas corpus and remanded the matter to the trial
court to “determine whether the State’s discriminatory classification was justified” under both
constitutional claims. 4 Id.
The Fourth Court of Appeals has since decided several cases involving OLS criminal
trespass prosecutions in which it found, under State constitutional standards, that the State did not
meet its burden of establishing a justification for its discriminatory policy of selectively prosecuting
men only. For example, in State v. Gomez, No. 04-22-00872-CR, 2023 WL 7552682 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio Nov. 15, 2023, pet. filed) another male non-citizen (Gomez) filed an application for
pretrial writ of habeas corpus making a similar claim of selective prosecution on the basis of sex
following his arrest in Kinney County for criminal trespass as part of OLS. In that case, the trial
3 In particular, the trial court heard evidence that “as part of OLS, 4,076 people had been arrested for misdemeanor offenses and not a single individual arrested was a woman.” Ex parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d 696, 714 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, pet. granted). 4 The State filed a petition for discretionary review of the Fourth Court of Appeals’ decision in Aparicio to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which granted review. In its petition, the State’s sole argument focused on whether the trial court erred in finding that Aparicio’s claim was cognizable in a pretrial writ of habeas corpus. However, upon accepting the State’s petition, the Court of Criminal Appeals ordered the parties to brief the following question: “Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s finding that Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution on the basis of sex discrimination.” See Aparcio v. State, No. PD-0461-23, 2024 WL 178283 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024). As of this date, the Court of Criminal Appeals has not issued its opinion deciding either issue.
4 court issued the writ, held an evidentiary hearing, then granted the writ. Id. at *1. The State appealed,
conceding it had only arrested males at the border under OLS, but arguing its discriminatory actions
were justified based on: “(1) Governor Abbott’s Proclamation declaring an emergency regarding
border security; and (2) testimony that the counties implementing OLS do not have sufficient
facilities to hold women detainees.” Id. at *5. The Fourth Court of Appeals rejected the State’s
argument, finding that although security at the border may be considered a compelling interest, the
State did not demonstrate its actions were narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Id. The court noted
that OLS was a multi-billion-dollar operation, and the State did not explain why it could not have
allocated funds for a facility to hold women. Id. The court therefore held that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in “concluding the State failed in its burden of justifying its discriminatory
conduct,” and it affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant his requested relief and
dismiss his criminal case. Id.; see also State v. Garcia Compean, No. 04-22-00886-CR, 2023 WL
8104870, at *2 (Tex. App.— San Antonio Nov. 22, 2023, pet. filed) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (affirming trial court’s order granting pretrial habeas relief where State failed to meet
its burden of justifying its discriminatory policy); Ex parte Marcos-Callejas, No. 04-23-00327-CR,
2024 WL 2164653, at *7 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 15, 2024, no pet. h.) (reversing trial court’s
order denying OLS defendant’s application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus and ordering
defendant’s criminal case dismissed, where the State failed to meet its burden of justifying its
discriminatory policy); Ex parte Vazquez-Bautista, 683 S.W.3d 504, 510 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
2023, pet. filed) (opinion on en banc reconsideration) (same).
C. The issue before us
In this case, the State does not deny that Almanza-Manriquez was the subject of selective
prosecution, nor does it attempt to justify its discriminatory policy of prosecuting only men for
5 criminal trespass under OLS. The State’s only argument on appeal is that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to hear Almanza-Manriquez’s application, contending that a claim of selective
prosecution is not cognizable in a pretrial writ of habeas corpus. As explained below, we reject that
argument in light of Aparicio, and we then consider whether we have jurisdiction to hear Almanza-
Manriquez’s appeal, and if so, how we resolve the merits of the appeal.
II. ALMANZA-MANRIQUEZ’S CLAIMS ARE COGNIZABLE IN A PRETRIAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS We start with the State’s argument that Almanza-Manriquez’s claim of selective prosecution
is not cognizable in a pretrial writ of habeas corpus. The State acknowledges that the Fourth Court
of Appeals held in Aparicio that claims of this nature are cognizable in a pretrial habeas proceeding,
but contends that “[t]here is no competent legal authority supporting the Court’s ruling” and urges
us to reject the court’s ruling.
In support of its argument, the State primarily relies on Ex parte Perry, 483 S.W.3d 884, 896
(Tex. Crim. App. 2016) for the proposition that the Court of Criminal Appeals adopted an “exclusive
list” of situations in which a defendant may seek a pretrial writ of habeas corpus, to include only
double jeopardy claims, bail claims, and claims relating to and raised by elected officials. The court
in Aparicio, however, did not read Perry so narrowly, and instead referred to its earlier holding in
Ex parte Dominguez Ortiz, 668 S.W.3d 126, 131 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, no pet.) in which
it interpreted Perry as holding that a pretrial writ “may be appropriate when ‘the particular
constitutional right at issue . . . is the type that would be effectively undermined if not vindicated
prior to trial.’” Ex parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d at 710 (citing Ex parte Dominguez Ortiz, 668 S.W.3d
at131, quoting Ex parte Perry, 483 S.W.3d at 896). And in Aparicio, the court determined that the
defendant’s “constitutional right to equal protection would be effectively undermined if not
6 vindicated before trial.” 5 Ex parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d at 711.
The State also cites Ex parte Sheffield, 685 S.W.3d 86, 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023), which
was issued after Aparicio, in an attempt to persuade us that the ruling in Aparicio was wrongly
decided. We reject this argument for two reasons.
First, we do not read Sheffield as having any impact on the holding in Aparicio. In Sheffield,
the court simply reiterated its long-standing view that an “applicant may not use a pretrial writ to
assert his or her constitutional rights to a speedy trial[.]” Ex parte Sheffield, 685 S.W.3d at 95 (citing
Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Ex parte Doster, 303 S.W.3d 720,
724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ex parte Delbert, 582 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1979); Ex parte Jones, 449 S.W.2d 59, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)). While the court did recognize
that “pretrial habeas corpus is available ‘only in very limited circumstances,’” such as in cases in
which a defendant has raised a claim of double jeopardy, it did not hold that a double jeopardy claim
is the only claim that a defendant may bring in a pretrial habeas application. Id. at 93 (citing Ex parte
Smith, 178 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)). To the contrary, the court in Sheffield referred
to its prior pronouncement in Perry, in which it recognized that a defendant may bring a pretrial
habeas application to assert a constitutional right in situations in which “postponing relief until after
trial . . . would effectively undermine the right, such that vindication would have to come before
5 The State argues that the court’s decision in Aparicio conflicts with its earlier decision in Ex parte Dominguez Ortiz, 668 S.W.3d 126, 131 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, no pet.). We disagree. As the court recognized in Aparicio, the defendant in Dominguez Ortiz, did not raise a selective prosecution issue, and instead raised a “right to counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment.” Ex parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d at 711. The court in Dominguez Ortiz held that this was not the “type of claim that would be ‘effectively undermined if not vindicated prior to trial’ because the right to prepare for trial does not encompass a right to avoid trial.” Ex parte Dominguez Ortiz, 668 S.W.3d at 139. In turn, the court in Aparicio expressly distinguished Dominguez Ortiz on the ground that a selective prosecution claim is the type of constitutional claim that would entitle the defendant to avoid trial. Id. at 711.
7 trial.” Id. at 96 (citing Perry, 483 S.W.3d at 895–96). And, as set forth above, in Aparicio, the Fourth
Court of Appeals expressly determined that the constitutional right to be free from selective
prosecution is such a right that must be vindicated prior to trial, or it would be lost. Ex parte
Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d at 711.
Second, although the State encourages us to reject the Fourth Court of Appeals’ holding on
the issue of cognizability, as a transferee court, we are prohibited from doing so. The Rules of
Appellate Procedure provide that a transferee court is bound by the transferor court’s precedent,
even if it conflicts with its own. Tex. R. App. P. 41.3. Therefore, given the binding authority from
the Fourth Court of Appeals on this issue, we are constrained to follow that authority, and must do
so even though the Court of Criminal Appeals has granted review of the Aparicio opinion. See
Brazos Elec. Power Coop., Inc. v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 576 S.W.3d 374, 382-83, n. 6
(Tex. 2019) (an opinion issued by a transferor court remains “binding precedent” even though the
case is pending on rehearing).
Accordingly, we conclude that Almanza-Manriquez’s claim of selective prosecution is
cognizable in a pretrial writ of habeas corpus.
III. THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER IS APPEALABLE We must next consider whether Almanza-Manriquez has a right to appeal the trial court’s
order denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. We conclude he does.
We addressed a similar situation in our Ramos-Morales opinion, another OLS case
transferred to us from the Fourth Court of Appeals, in which we recognized that a trial court’s order
denying a pretrial habeas application is only appealable if the trial court either grants or denies the
application on its merits. Ex parte Ramos-Morales, No. 08-23-00285-CR, 2023 WL 8813572 *4
8 (Tex. App.—El Paso Dec. 20, 2023, pet. filed) (citing Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 394
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (recognizing that except as provided by statute, only when “there is a ruling
on the merits of the claims may a losing party appeal” from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus)).
But, as we explained in that case, a trial court need not formally issue the writ or hold an evidentiary
hearing before making a merits-based decision. Id. at *5.
Here, we agree with Almanza-Manriquez that the trial court made a merits-based—and
therefore appealable—ruling when it denied his habeas application despite not formally issuing the
writ or holding an evidentiary hearing. In its order, the trial court stated that Almanza-Manriquez’s
writ application “came on to be heard” that day, and “having considered same [and] upon review of
the Application and allegations the application for writ to bring the defendant to the Court is denied
without hearing and requested relief is denied.” As in Ramos-Morales, we find this language
sufficient to demonstrate that the trial court considered the merits of Almanza-Manriquez’s habeas
claims and expressly denied the relief he requested in his application, which makes the denial of his
application an appealable order. 6 Id. (finding trial court’s order to be merits-based and therefore
appealable, where the trial court stated that it had reviewed the “allegations” in the writ application,
was taking “Judicial Knowledge of the filings in this cause,” and was denying his “requested relief.”)
(citing Ex Parte Suarez, No. 06-23-00214-CR, 2023 WL 8287582, at *1–2 (Tex. App.— Texarkana
Dec. 1, 2023) (pet. filed.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (finding trial court’s use of
6 The Fourth Court of Appeals has distinguished Ramos-Morales from other cases in which the trial court did not expressly state that it was denying an OLS defendant’s “requested relief,” finding the use of such language to be significant in determining whether a trial court’s order was merits-based. See Ex parte Lopez, No. 04-22-00784-CR, 2024 WL 350595, at *2, n. 2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 31, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (distinguishing Ramos-Morales, where trial court did not state that it was expressly denying OLS defendant’s “requested relief,” and instead stated that the defendant was “manifestly not entitled to relief,” thereby justifying the trial court’s decision to deny the application without issuing the writ or setting forth any rulings on the merits of the application).
9 similar language in order denying OLS defendant’s application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus to
be merits-based, making the order appealable)). The State does not contend otherwise.
Accordingly, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to consider Almanza-Manriquez’s
appeal. We now turn to the merits.
IV. THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL
A. Standard of review
In reviewing the merits of a trial court’s decision to grant or deny habeas corpus relief, we
defer to the trial court’s assessment of the facts when those facts turn on an evaluation of credibility
and demeanor. Gomez, 2023 WL 7552682, at *4 (citing Ex parte Perusquia, 336 S.W.3d 270, 274–
75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, pet. ref’d); Ex parte Quintana, 346 S.W.3d 681, 684
(Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, pet. ref’d). We view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial
court’s ruling and will uphold it absent an abuse of discretion. Id.; see also Ex parte Treviño, 648
S.W.3d 435, 439 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2021, no pet.) (recognizing that appellate court views
the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling). Reviewing courts must also grant
deference to implicit findings of fact that support the trial court’s ultimate ruling. See Ex parte
Perusquia, 336 S.W.3d at 275 (citing Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317, 324 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006)). However, “[i]f the resolution of the ultimate question turns on an application of the law, we
review the determination de novo.” Id.; see also Ex parte Vazquez-Bautista, 683 S.W.3d at 510
(recognizing same in context of an appeal from a trial court’s decision granting an OLS applicant’s
pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus). Here, we resolve the appeal as a matter of law.
B. We reverse and remand for dismissal of the charge
As we have previously recognized, the State’s judiciary has been inundated with appeals
10 from various trial courts’ rulings on applications for pretrial writs of habeas corpus from OLS
defendants. Ex parte Ramos-Morales, 2023 WL 8813572, at *5. And the Fourth Court of Appeals
has already determined, as a matter of law, that the State engaged in gender discrimination by only
prosecuting males for criminal trespass at the border under OLS during the same timeframe in which
Almanza-Manriquez was arrested. 7 Ex parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d at 715. Accordingly, we
conclude—as we did in Ramos-Morales—that Almanza-Manriquez has, as a matter of law, met his
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of selective prosecution, i.e., that “the prosecutorial
policy had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” Ex parte
Ramos-Morales, 2023 WL 8813572, at *6 (citing Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d at 715).
This leaves us with only the second prong in the analysis, i.e., whether the State has a
justification for its discriminatory policy. As explained above, the Fourth Court of Appeals has
rejected the State’s various attempts to justify its gender discrimination policy during the same
relevant time period, finding that although security at the border may be a compelling interest, the
State failed to demonstrate that its actions were narrowly tailored to serve that interest. See Gomez,
2023 WL 7552682 at *5; State v. Rodriguez Rodas, No. 04-22-00885-CR, 2023 WL 8103194, at *1
(Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 22, 2023, pet. filed) (mem. op, not designated for publication)
(same); Garcia Compean, 2023 WL 8104870, at *2 (same). In various cases, the Fourth Court of
7 We note that although the State does not do so in this case, it has alleged in other OLS cases that beginning in February of 2023, it began arresting female noncitizens for criminal trespass under OLS. See, e.g., Ex parte Barahona-Gomez, No. 04-23-00230-CR, 2023 WL 6285324, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 27, 2023, pet. filed.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Almanza-Manriquez, however, was arrested on January 16, 2022, over a year prior to that time. And, as the Fourth Court of Appeals has recognized, the fact that the State may have changed its discriminatory after a defendant’s arrest has no bearing on the defendant’s selective prosecution claims, as the only relevant issue in such a case is the policy the State had in place at the time of the defendant’s arrest. Id.
11 Appeals has reversed a trial court’s order denying an OLS defendant’s application for pretrial writ
of habeas corpus and remanded for the trial court to dismiss the defendant’s criminal cases with
prejudice, with no further proceedings, when the record reflects that the State provided no further
justification for its discriminatory policy. See Ex parte Vazquez-Bautista, 683 S.W.3d at 515 (citing
Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d at 711) (explaining that if applicant’s “selective-prosecution claim on the
basis of equal protection has merit, any conviction resulting from a trial would be void, and he would
be entitled to release”)); In re Aiken Cnty., 725 F.3d 255, 264 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“If the Executive
selectively prosecutes someone based on impermissible considerations, the equal protection remedy
is to dismiss the prosecution[.]”) (Kavanaugh, J.)); see also Ex parte Gonzalez-Morales, No. 04-22-
00629-CR, 2023 WL 8793121, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 20, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op,
not designated for publication) (recognizing same).
Here, we recognize that the trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing to allow the State
to present a justification for its discriminatory policy. But the State has neither requested that we
remand to the trial court for such a hearing, nor do we believe that a remand would be appropriate
under the circumstances of this case.
As we explained in Ramos-Morales, the sole purpose of an appeal from a trial court’s habeas
corpus ruling is to “do substantial justice to the parties,” and in resolving such an appeal, we may
“render whatever judgment . . . the nature of the case require[s].” Ex parte Ramos-Morales, 2023
WL 8813572, at *7 (citing Tex. R. App. P. 31.3 (in habeas appeals, an “appellate court will render
whatever judgment and make whatever orders the law and the nature of the case require”); Tex. R.
App. P. 31.2 (in habeas appeals, “the sole purpose of the appeal is to do substantial justice to the
parties”)). Under the circumstances of this case, it would not do substantial justice to the parties to
remand for further proceedings on the merits. As in Ramos-Morales, the State in this case did not
12 argue in the trial court or in its appellate briefing that it had any justification for its actions, and it
has not requested the opportunity to provide a justification; instead, it has limited its argument solely
to the cognizability of Almanza-Manriquez’s habeas application. Id. at *9. In other words, the State
has not shown—or even attempted to show—that on remand that it could assert a different
justification for its actions that the Fourth Court of Appeals has not already rejected as a matter of
law. Accordingly, we find that it would be an “exercise in futility” to remand for an evidentiary
hearing on this issue, given the lack of any disputed law or facts. Id. (citing N. Cypress Med. Ctr.
Operating Co., Ltd. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 898 F.3d 461, 479–80 (5th Cir. 2018) (where facts and
law were well-settled, court recognized that it would be an “exercise in futility” and “diminish
judicial economy” to remand to the trial court for further proceedings, where there was a “high
likelihood” that the same issue would return to the court in a subsequent appeal, thereby further
prolonging the litigation unnecessarily)).
Remanding to the trial court for additional proceedings on the merits would also
unnecessarily cause further delays in resolving Almanza-Manriquez’s habeas claims, which cuts
against the principle that habeas proceedings should be handled in an expedited manner. Id. (citing
Ex parte Johnson, 876 S.W.2d 340, 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)) (finding it appropriate to issue a
writ of habeas corpus, without remanding to the trial court, by utilizing its habeas corpus jurisdiction
and power to “expedite a fair resolution of the unconstitutional situation the courts below have
created for this applicant”); Tex. R. App. P. 31.2(b) (providing that an appeal in a habeas corpus
proceeding other than one challenging a defendant’s conviction or placement on community
supervision, “shall be submitted and heard at the earliest practicable time”).
We therefore conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying Almanza-
Manriquez’s application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus, and that he has established his entitlement
13 to the relief requested in his application.
V. CONCLUSION
We reverse the trial court’s order and remand to the trial court with directions to grant the
writ and dismiss with prejudice the misdemeanor criminal trespass charge against Almanza-
Manriquez.
LISA J. SOTO, Justice
August 16, 2024
Before Alley, CJ, Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)