SAREGUI-MENDOZA, EX PARTE HECTOR v. the State of Texas
This text of SAREGUI-MENDOZA, EX PARTE HECTOR v. the State of Texas (SAREGUI-MENDOZA, EX PARTE HECTOR v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
NOS. PD-0740-23, PD-0784-23 & PD-0792-23
EX PARTE FERNANDO ROQUIEL TOPOF, HECTOR SAREGUI-MENDOZA & BILLY RODOLFO RAMIREZ, Appellees
ON STATE’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SAN ANTONIO COURT OF APPEALS WEBB COUNTY
Per curiam. YEARY, J., dissented.
OPINION
In each of these cases, Appellee was arrested for trespassing on private property.
See TEX. PENAL CODE § 30.05(a). He filed a pretrial application for a writ of habeas
corpus, arguing that the State was selectively prosecuting him in violation of his equal
protection rights. In each case, the trial court granted relief, the State appealed, and the
court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling granting relief.1
1 Ex parte Roquiel-Topof, No. 04-22-00691-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio August 30, 2023); Ex parte Saregui-Mendoza, No. 04-22-00693-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio September The State has filed a petition for discretionary review in each case, challenging the
court of appeals’ holding that Appellee’s claim is cognizable in a pretrial habeas
application. We recently handed down our opinion in Ex parte Aparicio, No. PD-0461-
23, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. October 9, 2024), in which we held that Aparicio’s
selective prosecution claim was cognizable in a pretrial habeas application. We also held
that Aparicio did not make a prima facie showing that he was arrested and prosecuted
because of his gender.
Consistent with our opinion in Aparicio, we grant review on our own motion of the
following ground in each case:
Did Appellee make a prima facie showing that he was arrested and prosecuted because of his gender?
Accordingly, in each case, we vacate the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the
case to that court in light of our opinion in Aparicio. The State’s petitions are refused. No
motions for rehearing will be entertained, and the Clerk is instructed to immediately issue
mandate.
DATE DELIVERED: DECEMBER 11, 2024 DO NOT PUBLISH
13, 2023); Ex parte Ramirez, No. 04-22-00692-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio September 27, 2023).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
SAREGUI-MENDOZA, EX PARTE HECTOR v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saregui-mendoza-ex-parte-hector-v-the-state-of-texas-texcrimapp-2024.