IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0154-24 EX PARTE ISAAC BARAHONA GOMEZ, Appellant

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SAN ANTONIO COURT OF APPEALS KINNEY COUNTY

Per curiam. YEARY, J., dissented.

OPINION

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. The trial court denied relief, Appellant appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling denying relief.1

Ex parte Gomez, No. 04-23-00230-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio September 27, 2023).

The State has filed a petition for discretionary review, challenging the court of appeals’ holding that Appellant’s claim is cognizable in a pretrial habeas application. The State also argues that the court of appeals erred in remanding Appellant’s case. 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: Did Appellant make a prima facie showing that he was arrested and prosecuted because of his gender?

Accordingly, 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 petition is refused. No motion for rehearing will be entertained, and the Clerk is instructed to immediately issue mandate.

DATE DELIVERED: DECEMBER 11, 2024 DO NOT PUBLISH