Ex Parte Simon Martinez Martinez v. the State of Texas

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS

NOS. PD-0017-24, PD-0018-24, PD-0019-24, PD-0020-24, PD-0021-24
PD-0022-24, PD-0023-24, PD-0024-24 & PD-0025-24

EX PARTE LUIS ANGEL RECENDIS-TREJO, LUIS ANGEL MARTINEZ
HERNANDEZ, SIMON MARTINEZ MARTINEZ, JOSE CRUZ BATISTA-
GARCIA, FRANCISCO ELPIDIO ALVARADO-ACEVEDO, DAVID MARTINEZ
MARTINEZ, CANDIDO ANTONIO GOMEZ-MERCADO, GERARDO REYES
URBINA SUAREZ & LUIS GUSTAVO VENTURA GIL, Appellants

ON STATE’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE TEXARKANA 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 and remanded the case for

further proceedings.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.2 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?

1
Ex parte Recendis-Trejo, No. 06-23-00206-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana November 30,
2023); Ex parte Hernandez, No. 06-23-00207-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana December 5, 2023);
Ex parte Martinez, No. 06-23-00208-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana December 1, 2023); Ex parte
Batista-Garcia, No. 06-23-00209-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana December 1, 2023); Ex parte
Alvarado-Acevedo, No. 06-23-00210-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana December 1, 2023); Ex parte
Martinez, No. 06-23-00211-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana December 1, 2023); Ex parte Gomez-
Mercado, No. 06-23-00213-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana December 1, 2023); Ex parte Suarez,
No. 06-23-00214-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana December 1, 2023); Ex parte Gil, No. 06-23-
00215-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana December 1, 2023).
2
After the State filed its petitions in this Court, the trial court entered an order in each
case denying relief. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to do so. See Ex parte Sheffield, 685
S.W.3d 86, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (pending appeal in habeas proceeding bars trial court
from acting in that proceeding). Therefore, the cases before us are not moot.
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