TRISTEN, EX PARTE RIGOBERTO SANCHEZ v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 11, 2024
DocketPD-0499-24
StatusPublished

This text of TRISTEN, EX PARTE RIGOBERTO SANCHEZ v. the State of Texas (TRISTEN, EX PARTE RIGOBERTO SANCHEZ 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.

Bluebook
TRISTEN, EX PARTE RIGOBERTO SANCHEZ v. the State of Texas, (Tex. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

NOS. PD-0439-24, PD-0499-24 & PD-0941-24

EX PARTE FERNANDO ALVAREZ BARRAGAN, RIGOBERTO SANCHEZ TRISTEN & ALEJANDRO RIVERA SAAVEDRA, Appellants

ON STATE’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS KINNEY COUNTY

Per curiam. YEARY, J., dissented.

OPINION

In each of these cases, Appellant 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 denied relief, Appellant appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling denying relief.1

The State has filed a petition for discretionary review in each case, arguing that the

court of appeals erred in following the San Antonio Court of Appeals’ decision in Ex

parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023). 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 Appellant 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DATE DELIVERED: DECEMBER 11, 2024 DO NOT PUBLISH

1 Ex parte Barragan, No. 05-24-00073-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas March 27, 2024); Ex parte Tristen, No. 05-24-00217-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas May 8, 2024); Ex parte Saavedra, No. 05-24- 00216-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas August 8, 2024).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 30.05
Texas PE § 30.05(a)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
TRISTEN, EX PARTE RIGOBERTO SANCHEZ v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tristen-ex-parte-rigoberto-sanchez-v-the-state-of-texas-texcrimapp-2024.