Ex Parte Julio Gonzalez Ramirez v. . ( 2024 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-23-00439-CR
EX PARTE Julio GONZALEZ-RAMIREZ
From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas
Trial Court No. 13223CR
Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 3, 2024
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DENIED
Appellant, Julio Gonzalez-Ramirez, appeals from the denial of his pretrial application for
writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, treat the appeal as a petition
for writ of mandamus at Gonzalez-Ramirez’s request, and deny his mandamus petition.
BACKGROUND
Gonzalez-Ramirez, a noncitizen, was arrested under Operation Lone Star and charged with
the misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass. On February 21, 2023, Gonzalez-Ramirez filed an
application for writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the criminal trespass charge because, he
alleged, the State engaged in selective prosecution, in violation of his right to equal protection,
when it decided to charge him. On March 25, 2023, the trial court issued an order stating, “the
Application is denied without issuing writ.” Gonzalez-Ramirez timely filed a notice of appeal.
04-23-00439-CR
On April 10, 2024, we issued an order notifying Gonzalez-Ramirez that it appears we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal and that we would dismiss this appeal unless he filed a response to
our order showing that we have jurisdiction.
Gonzalez-Ramirez filed a response on April 11, 2024, in which he argues that the trial
court’s “order is appealable.” Gonzalez-Ramirez also requests, in the event we determine that we
lack jurisdiction over his appeal, that we treat his appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus.
JURISDICTION
There is no right to an appeal when a trial court refuses to issue a habeas writ or dismisses
or denies a habeas application without ruling on the merits of the applicant’s claims. See Ex parte
Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Ex parte Molina Valencia, — S.W.3d
—, No. 04-23-01044-CR, 2024 WL 1642923, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio April 17, 2024, no
pet. h.) (en banc). “Thus, where the record does not show that the trial court ruled on the merits of
the application for writ of habeas corpus, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.” Molina Valencia,
2024 WL 1642923, at *1 (quoting Ex parte Blunston, No. 04-12-00657-CV, 2013 WL 3874471,
at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 24, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication);
citing Ex parte Bowers, 36 S.W.3d 926, 927 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. ref’d); Ex parte Miller,
931 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, no pet.)).
Here, the trial court did not issue a writ, and the trial court’s order simply states that “the
Application is denied without issuing writ”—language we have previously held does not suggest
a ruling on the merits. E.g., id. at *2 (citing In re Martinez-Jimenez, No. 04-23-00547-CR, 2023
WL 7005866, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 25, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not
designated for publication); In re Lara Belmontes, 675 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
2023, orig. proceeding)). Further, no reporter’s record has been filed, and nothing in the record
-2-
04-23-00439-CR
shows that the trial court held any hearings related to Gonzalez-Ramirez’s habeas application or
the merits thereof or otherwise considered any evidence related to the application.
Consequently, nothing in our review of the entire record reflects that the trial court
considered or expressed an opinion on the merits of Gonzalez-Ramirez’s habeas claims. 1 See id.;
Ex parte Garcia, 683 S.W.3d 467, 473 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, no pet.) (en banc). We
therefore conclude that the trial court did not rule on the merits of Gonzalez-Ramirez’s habeas
application, and we lack jurisdiction to review his appeal. See Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d at 394;
Molina Valencia, 2024 WL 1642923, at *2; Garcia, 683 S.W.3d at 473.
REQUEST TO TREAT HABEAS APPEAL AS A MANDAMUS PETITION
We may, in certain circumstances, treat an appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus, if
specifically requested to do so by the appellant. See Molina Valencia, 2024 WL 1642923, at *2.
As stated above, Gonzalez-Ramirez specifically requests that we construe his appeal as a
mandamus petition if we determine the trial court’s order is not appealable. We will therefore treat
Gonzalez-Ramirez’s appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus.
After considering the petition and the record, we deny Gonzalez-Ramirez’s request for
mandamus relief. See id. at *2–4.
1
Gonzalez-Ramirez argues in his appellate brief that the trial judge held a hearing and heard testimony on an identical
claim in another case in a different county and that the hearing in the other case “likely informed her denial in this
case.” Similarly, Gonzalez-Ramirez argues in his April 11, 2024 response to our April 10, 2024 order that the trial
court’s “order is appealable because . . . the lower court has previously considered the merits of the exact same claim
dozens of times in other Operation Lone Star cases.” We, however, “may not consider factual assertions that are
outside the record.” Whitehead v. State, 130 S.W.3d 866, 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); see Janecka v. State, 937
S.W.2d 456, 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (“It is a long standing principle that we cannot review contentions which
depend upon factual assertions outside of the record.”). Nor may we consider evidence from the record of another
case, unless we take judicial notice of our own records from “the same or related proceedings involving same or nearly
same parties.” Turner v. State, 733 S.W.2d 218, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Therefore, we may not consider the
records from other cases in determining whether the trial court ruled on the merits of Gonzalez-Ramirez’s habeas
application in this case.
-3-
04-23-00439-CR
CONCLUSION
Because the trial court’s denial of Gonzalez-Ramirez’s habeas application was not based
on the merits, we lack jurisdiction to review his habeas appeal. We therefore dismiss his appeal
for want of jurisdiction and, at Gonzalez-Ramirez’s request, treat his appeal as a petition for writ
of mandamus. Finally, we deny without prejudice Gonzalez-Ramirez’s petition for writ of
mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-4-