Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2024

VELAZQUEZ-CRUZ, EX PARTE GUSTAVO v. the State of Texas

VELAZQUEZ-CRUZ, EX PARTE GUSTAVO v. the State of Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Decided December 11, 2024

VELAZQUEZ-CRUZ, EX PARTE GUSTAVO v. the State of Texas

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NOS. PD-0726-23, PD-0739-23, PD-0771-23, PD-0779-23, PD-0793-23 & PD-0900-23

EX PARTE JOSUE ISAY DEL CAMPO-CHAVEZ, JUAN LUIS BALTAZAR- PEREZ, ALDO GALINDO-ZAMORA, GUSTAVO VELAZQUEZ-CRUZ, PERFECTO TREJO-RUBIO & IVAN GALINDO-CHAVEZ, Appellees ON STATE’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SAN ANTONIO COURT OF APPEALS ZAPATA COUNTY

Per curiam. YEARY, J., dissented.

OPINION

In each of these cases, Appellee 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 granted relief, the State appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling granting relief.1 Ex parte Del Campo-Chavez, 674 S.W.3d 714 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023); Ex parte Baltazar-Perez, No. 04-22-00740-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio August 30, The State has filed a petition for discretionary review in each case, challenging the court of appeals’ holding that Appellee’s claim is cognizable in a pretrial habeas application. 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 Appellee 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DATE DELIVERED: DECEMBER 11, 2024 DO NOT PUBLISH

2023); Ex parte Galindo-Zamora, No. 04-22-00739-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio September 27, 2023); Ex parte Velazquez-Cruz, No. 04-22-00742-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio September 13, 2023); Ex parte Trejo-Rubio, No. 04-22-00741-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio September 27, 2023); Ex parte Galindo-Chavez, No. 04-22-00738-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio October 4, 2023).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.