VAZQUEZ-BAUTISTA, EX PARTE JUAN ESTEBAN v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 11, 2024
• Docket: PD-0080-24
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

NOS. PD-0072-24, PD-0080-24, PD-0121-24 & PD-0127-24

EX PARTE ELLIOT JERZAIN RAMOS-ESTRADA, JUAN ESTEBAN VAZQUEZ-BAUTISTA, ABRAHAM VASQUEZ-MARQUEZ & JOSE ANTONIO- SANTIAGO, Appellants

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, 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, challenging the

court of appeals’ holding that Appellant’s claim is cognizable in a pretrial habeas

application. The State also argues that in each case the court of appeals erred by ordering

Appellant’s discharge rather than remanding the case for further development of the

record. 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.

1 Ex parte Ramos-Estrada, No. 04-22-00632-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio December 13, 2023); Ex parte Vazquez-Bautista, 683 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023); Ex parte Vasquez-Marquez, No. 04-22-00626-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio December 27, 2023); Ex parte Antonio-Santiago, No. 04-22-00628-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio December 27, 2023). DATE DELIVERED: DECEMBER 11, 2024 DO NOT PUBLISH