The State of Texas v. Carlos Navil Rodriguez Benegas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 17, 2024
• Docket: 04-22-00894-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00894-CR

The STATE of Texas, Appellant

v.

Carlos Navil RODRIGUEZ BENEGAS, Appellee

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas Trial Court No. 13994CR Honorable Dennis Powell, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 17, 2024

AFFIRMED

The State of Texas appeals the trial court’s order granting Carlos Navil Rodriguez

Benegas’s requested habeas relief and dismissing his criminal case with prejudice. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On March 6, 2021, Governor Greg Abbott directed the Texas Department of Public Safety

(“DPS”) to initiate Operation Lone Star (“OLS”) and “devote additional law enforcement

resources toward deterring illegal border crossing and protecting [] border communities.” He

further directed “DPS to use available resources to enforce all applicable federal and state laws to 04-22-00894-CR

prevent criminal activity along the border, including criminal trespassing, smuggling, and human

trafficking, and to assist Texas counties in their efforts to address those criminal activities.”

As part of OLS, Rodriguez Benegas, a noncitizen, was arrested for criminal trespass on

October 27, 2022, in Kinney County. On November 8, 2022, Rodriguez Benegas filed an

application for writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the criminal charge, arguing his rights

had been violated under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and the Texas Constitution’s

Equal Rights Amendment. See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 3(a). Specifically,

Rodriguez Benegas argued that the State’s selective enforcement 1 of criminal trespass against men,

and not similarly situated women, as part of OLS violated his constitutional rights. The trial court

granted the writ and set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on November 18, 2022.

At the hearing, the trial court heard the merits of Rodriguez Benegas’s pretrial habeas

claim, along with twenty-one other cases, all filed on selective enforcement grounds. We described

the evidence presented at this hearing in a previous opinion, State v. Gomez, — S.W.3d —, No.

04-22-00872-CR, 2023 WL 7552682, at *1–4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 15, 2023, pet. filed),

as both the habeas claim in Gomez and the habeas claim in the instant case were heard at the same

time. After considering the evidence presented at the hearing, on December 21, 2022, the trial

court found that Rodriguez Benegas had presented a prima facie selective-enforcement claim on

the basis of equal protection and further found that the State had not met its burden of justifying

1 The terms “selective prosecution” and “selective enforcement” are sometimes used interchangeably, although they are distinct claims. See Ex parte Marcos-Callejas, — S.W.3d —, No. 04-23-00327-CR, 2024 WL 2164653, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 15, 2024, no pet. h.) (citations omitted). Here, while Rodriguez Benegas’s pretrial habeas application sought dismissal on “selective-prosecution” grounds, the evidence Rodriguez Benegas presented in his application and at the hearing shows that under OLS, law enforcement officers arrested and charged men, but not women, for criminal trespass—evidence that indicates Rodriguez Benegas was asserting a selective-enforcement claim. See id. at *2–3 & n.2. Moreover, the trial court, in its order granting Rodriguez Benegas habeas relief, found that Rodriguez Benegas was “the target of selective enforcement” and that “the unconstitutional prosecution is fully implemented at the level of arrest of only male suspects.” We therefore conclude that Rodriguez Benegas effectively presented a selective-enforcement claim and that the trial court construed his claim as one for selective enforcement, and we will refer to his claim as a selective-enforcement claim. See id. at *3.

-2- 04-22-00894-CR

the discriminatory treatment. Consequently, the trial court granted Rodriguez Benegas’s requested

relief and “order[ed] the criminal prosecution against Applicant be dismissed with prejudice.” The

State appealed.

DISCUSSION

In its brief, the State argues the trial court erred in granting relief on Rodriguez Benegas’s

selective-enforcement equal protection claim for the following three reasons: (1) his claim is not

cognizable in a pretrial habeas proceeding; (2) he did not present a prima facie case of selective-

enforcement on the basis of a violation of his equal protection rights; and (3) the State met its

burden of showing its policy passes “the strictest of scrutiny.” These are the same arguments

brought by the State in Gomez, 2023 WL 7552682, at *4. For the reasons enunciated in Gomez,

we hold that Rodriguez Benegas’s claim is cognizable in a pretrial habeas proceeding, that the trial

court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Rodriguez Benegas met his burden of showing

a prima facie claim for selective enforcement on the basis of gender discrimination, and that the

trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the State had not met its burden to justify

its discriminatory conduct under either strict scrutiny (Rodriguez Benegas’s state claim) or

intermediate scrutiny (Rodriguez Benegas’s federal claim). See id. at *4–6; Ex parte Marcos-

Callejas, — S.W.3d —, No. 04-23-00327-CR, 2024 WL 2164653, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio May 15, 2024, no pet. h.); Ex parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d 696, 716 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2023, pet. granted). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order granting Rodriguez

Benegas habeas relief and dismissing his criminal case with prejudice.

Irene Rios, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

-3-