The State of Texas v. Billy Rodolfo Ramirez
This text of The State of Texas v. Billy Rodolfo Ramirez (The State of Texas v. Billy Rodolfo Ramirez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-22-00692-CR
The STATE of Texas, Appellant
v.
Billy RODOLFO RAMIREZ, Appellee
From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CVK001350D1 Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 27, 2023
AFFIRMED
The State appeals the trial court’s order granting Billy Rodolfo Ramirez habeas relief. We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
As part of Operation Lone Star, Billy Rodolfo Ramirez, a noncitizen, was arrested for
trespassing on private property in Webb County. He filed an application for writ of habeas corpus
seeking dismissal of the criminal charge based on a violation of his state and federal rights to equal
protection. Specifically, Rodolfo Ramirez asserted that the State of Texas was engaging in 04-22-00692-CR
selective prosecution because only men were being charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass.
The trial court granted Rodolfo Ramirez’s requested relief, and the State appealed.
DISCUSSION
In State v. Del Campo-Chavez, we considered a State’s appeal from a grant of habeas relief
to a male OLS defendant who sought dismissal of his misdemeanor criminal trespass charge on
equal protection grounds. ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 04-22-00737-CR, 2023 WL 4916433, at *2 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio Aug. 2, 2023, no pet. h.). Del Campo-Chavez argued the State selectively
prosecuted him on the basis of his gender. See id. The State responded that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction, Del Campo-Chavez’s equal protection claim based on gender was not cognizable, and
Del Campo-Chavez failed to carry his burden to prove the prosecution was motivated by a
discriminatory purpose. See id. (citing Ex parte Aparicio, No. 04-22-00623-CR, 2023 WL
4095939, at *1, *8–12 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 21, 2023, pet. filed) (en banc); Ex parte
Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), superseded by statute on other grounds as
stated in Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 397 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)). Relying on Ex parte
Aparicio, we rejected the State’s arguments and affirmed the trial court’s order. Id. at *2, 3.
The State’s claims in this case are identical to those we addressed in Del Campo-Chavez.
For the reasons described in that opinion, and in Ex parte Aparicio, we affirm the trial court’s order
granting habeas relief.
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
The State of Texas v. Billy Rodolfo Ramirez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-state-of-texas-v-billy-rodolfo-ramirez-texapp-2023.