Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-23-00155-CR
The STATE of Texas, Appellant
v.
Josue Joel MARTINEZ-MARADIAGA, Appellee
From the County Court At Law No 1, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CRB000754L1 Honorable Leticia Martinez, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 27, 2024
REVERSED AND RENDERED
The State appeals the trial court’s order granting Appellee, Josue Joel Martinez-Maradiaga, habeas relief. We reverse the trial court’s order, render judgment dismissing Martinez-Maradiaga’s habeas application, and reinstate the information charging Martinez-Maradiaga with the misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass.
04-23-00155-CR
BACKGROUND
As part of Operation Lone Star, Martinez-Maradiaga, a noncitizen, was arrested on August 5, 2022, for trespassing on private property in Webb County. Martinez-Maradiaga filed an application for writ of habeas corpus on August 16, 2022; he later filed an amended habeas application on November 29, 2022. In both habeas applications, Martinez-Maradiaga sought dismissal of his criminal charge on Fourth Amendment grounds, arguing that the State lacked probable cause to arrest him for criminal trespass. 1 At an evidentiary hearing, Martinez-Maradiaga presented evidence that the location of his arrest was not fenced in. The trial court granted Martinez-Maradiaga’s requested relief. The State appeals.
COGNIZABILITY
In the sole issue the State raises on appeal, the State contends that the ground for relief asserted in Martinez-Maradiaga’s habeas application was not cognizable. The State therefore contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant Martinez-Maradiaga’s request for habeas relief.
“The writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary writ. Neither a trial court nor an appellate court should entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus when there is an adequate remedy
1 In his amended habeas application, Martinez-Maradiaga asserted an additional ground for relief. However, (1) Martinez-Maradiaga did not present any evidence or argument in support of this ground for relief at the habeas hearing on January 13, 2023; (2) after the hearing, Martinez-Maradiaga filed a memorandum in support of his habeas application that did not discuss or even mention this ground for relief; and (3) Martinez-Maradiaga does not raise this ground for relief in his appellate brief. Furthermore, the record indicates that neither the parties nor the trial court understood this ground for relief to be the basis of the trial court’s ruling on the merits of Martinez- Maradiaga’s habeas application. Therefore, we will not consider this additional ground for relief on appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1; Ex Parte Russell, 720 S.W.2d 477, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (“It is well established that in habeas corpus proceedings the burden of proof is upon the applicant and includes the burden of proving his factual allegations”); see also, e.g., Ex parte Yarbrough, 2016 WL 1588213 (Tex. App.—San Antonio April 20, 2016) (because “Yarbrough failed to present this challenge at the habeas hearing to provide the trial court the opportunity to rule on this specific point. . . the trial court did not make a ruling, and nothing is presented for review on appeal”); Greenville v. State, 798 S.W.2d 361, 362–63 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1990, no pet.) (appellate court was without jurisdiction to consider grounds of appeal not raised in habeas corpus hearing); see also, e.g., Ramos v. State, No. 04-04-00784-CR, 2006 WL 1232896, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 10, 2006), rev'd on other grounds, 245 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (argument in written motion was waived when defendant failed to make argument at hearing or trial).
-2-
04-23-00155-CR by appeal.” Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Whether a claim is cognizable on pretrial habeas is a threshold issue that we must address first. See Ex parte Dominguez Ortiz, 668 S.W.3d 126, 132 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, no pet.).
Pretrial habeas corpus is available “only in very limited circumstances.” Ex parte Sheffield, 685 S.W.3d 86, 93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (quoting Ex parte Smith, 178 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)); Ex parte Perry, 483 S.W.3d 884, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). As-applied challenges are generally not cognizable. Sheffield, 685 S.W.3d at 93. However, certain types of as-applied challenges may be raised by pretrial habeas where the rights underlying those claims would be effectively undermined if not vindicated before trial. Id. at 94; Perry, 483 S.W.3d at 895–96.
Here, Martinez-Maradiaga filed a habeas application seeking dismissal of his prosecution on the ground that officers lacked probable cause to arrest him for criminal trespass. Specifically, Martinez-Maradiaga argued that the probable cause affidavit was deficient because it failed to sufficiently allege an element of the offense: that Martinez-Maradiaga had notice that his entry onto the property on which he allegedly trespassed was forbidden. TEX. PENAL CODE § 30.05(a)(1).
We previously considered, in State v. Colin-Tapio, 679 S.W.3d 263, 265 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 2023, no pet.), a State’s appeal arising out of the same incident 2 and involving the same habeas claim, the same appellate issue, and the same trial court hearing 3 and determined that the habeas claim was not cognizable. Thus, for the reasons enunciated in Colin-Tapio, we conclude that Martinez-Maradiaga’s claim is not cognizable in a pretrial habeas proceeding. Id.
2 The State submitted a probable cause affidavit as an attachment in support of its response to Martinez-Maradiaga’s habeas application. In the affidavit, the officer described an incident involving seven individuals, including Martinez-Maradiaga and the appellee in Colin-Tapio. 3 The hearing in the trial court involved five habeas applications, including applications filed by Martinez- Maradiaga and the appellee in Colin-Tapio.
-3-
04-23-00155-CR at 265; see also Woods v. State, 153 S.W.3d 413, 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“[T]he statutes authorizing pre-trial proceedings do not contemplate a ‘mini-trial’ on the sufficiency of the evidence to support an element of the offense.”); Ex parte Brooks, 97 S.W.3d 639, 640 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.) (holding that habeas applicant who asserted that he was arrested without probable cause had an adequate remedy at law); Ex parte Whitaker, No. 12-22-00043-CR, 2022 WL 1572050, at * 2 (Tex. App.—Tyler May 18, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same); Ex parte Springer, No. 06-13-00201-CR, 2013 WL 6198326, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 26, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same); Ex parte Blakely, No. 05-18-00909-CR, 2019 WL 911739, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 25, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that claim applicant was arrested without probable cause is “not cognizable on a pretrial habeas writ”).
Because Martinez-Maradiaga’s claim is not cognizable by pretrial writ of habeas corpus, we sustain the State’s sole issue on appeal.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the trial court’s order granting Martinez-Maradiaga habeas relief, render judgment dismissing Martinez-Maradiaga’s habeas application, and reinstate the information charging Martinez-Maradiaga with the misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Irene Rios, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-4-