Ex Parte Amado Lopez Villega v. . ( 2024 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-23-00453-CR
EX PARTE Amado Lopez VILLEGA
From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas
Trial Court No. 14142CR
Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 3, 2024
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DENIED
Appellant, Amado Lopez Villega, 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 Villega’s request, and deny his mandamus petition.
BACKGROUND
Villega, a noncitizen, was arrested under Operation Lone Star and charged with the
misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass. On February 21, 2023, Villega 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 April 18, 2023, the trial court issued an order stating, “the Application is denied
without issuing writ.” Villega timely filed a notice of appeal.
04-23-00453-CR
On April 9, 2024, we issued an order notifying Villega 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.
Villega filed a response on April 11, 2024, in which he argues that the trial court’s “order
is appealable.” Villega 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-
04-23-00453-CR
shows that the trial court held any hearings related to Villega’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 Villega’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 Villega’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, Villega 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 Villega’s appeal
as a petition for writ of mandamus.
After considering the petition and the record, we deny Villega’s request for mandamus
relief. See id. at *2–4.
1
Villega 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, Villega argues in his April 11, 2024 response to our April 9, 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 Villega’s habeas application in this case.
-3-
04-23-00453-CR
CONCLUSION
Because the trial court’s denial of Villega’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 Villega’s request, treat his appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus. Finally,
we deny without prejudice Villega’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-