The State of Texas v. Bryan Javier Ramirez Alejo ( 2024 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-22-00875-CR
The STATE of Texas,
Appellant
v.
Bryan Javier RAMIREZ ALEJO,
Appellee
From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas
Trial Court No. 13760CR
Honorable Dennis Powell, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 17, 2024
AFFIRMED
The State of Texas appeals the trial court’s order granting Bryan Javier Ramirez Alejo’s
requested habeas relief and dismissing his criminal case with prejudice. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On March 6, 2021, Governor Greg Abbott directed the Texas Department of Public Safety
(“DPS”) to initiate Operation Lone Star (“OLS”) and “devote additional law enforcement
resources toward deterring illegal border crossing and protecting [] border communities.” He
further directed “DPS to use available resources to enforce all applicable federal and state laws to
04-22-00875-CR
prevent criminal activity along the border, including criminal trespassing, smuggling, and human
trafficking, and to assist Texas counties in their efforts to address those criminal activities.”
As part of OLS, Ramirez Alejo, a noncitizen, was arrested for criminal trespass on August
4, 2022, in Kinney County. On October 14, 2022, Ramirez Alejo filed an application for writ of
habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the criminal charge, arguing his rights had been violated under
the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and the Texas Constitution’s Equal Rights Amendment.
See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 3(a). Specifically, Ramirez Alejo argued that
the State’s selective enforcement 1 of criminal trespass against men, and not similarly situated
women, as part of OLS violated his constitutional rights. The trial court granted the writ and set
the matter for an evidentiary hearing on November 18, 2022.
At the hearing, the trial court heard the merits of Ramirez Alejo’s pretrial habeas claim,
along with twenty-one other cases, all filed on selective enforcement grounds. We described the
evidence presented at this hearing in a previous opinion, State v. Gomez, — S.W.3d —, No. 04-
22-00872-CR, 2023 WL 7552682, at *1–4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 15, 2023, pet. filed), as
both the habeas claim in Gomez and the habeas claim in the instant case were heard at the same
time. After considering the evidence presented at the hearing, on December 20, 2022, the trial
court found that Ramirez Alejo had presented a prima facie selective-enforcement claim on the
basis of equal protection and further found that the State had not met its burden of justifying the
1
The terms “selective prosecution” and “selective enforcement” are sometimes used interchangeably, although they
are distinct claims. See Ex parte Marcos-Callejas, — S.W.3d —, No. 04-23-00327-CR, 2024 WL 2164653, at *2
(Tex. App.—San Antonio May 15, 2024, no pet. h.) (citations omitted). Here, while Ramirez Alejo’s pretrial habeas
application sought dismissal on “selective-prosecution” grounds, the evidence Ramirez Alejo presented in his
application and at the hearing shows that under OLS, law enforcement officers arrested and charged men, but not
women, for criminal trespass—evidence that indicates Ramirez Alejo was asserting a selective-enforcement claim.
See id. at *2–3 & n.2. Moreover, the trial court, in its order granting Ramirez Alejo habeas relief, found that Ramirez
Alejo was “the target of selective enforcement” and that “the unconstitutional prosecution is fully implemented at the
level of arrest of only male suspects.” We therefore conclude that Ramirez Alejo effectively presented a selective-
enforcement claim and that the trial court construed his claim as one for selective enforcement, and we will refer to
his claim as a selective-enforcement claim. See id. at *3.
-2-
04-22-00875-CR
discriminatory treatment. Consequently, the trial court granted Ramirez Alejo’s requested relief
and “order[ed] the criminal prosecution against Applicant be dismissed with prejudice.” The State
appealed.
DISCUSSION
In its brief, the State argues the trial court erred in granting relief on Ramirez Alejo’s
selective-enforcement equal protection claim for the following three reasons: (1) his claim is not
cognizable in a pretrial habeas proceeding; (2) he did not present a prima facie case of selective-
enforcement on the basis of a violation of his equal protection rights; and (3) the State met its
burden of showing its policy passes “the strictest of scrutiny.” These are the same arguments
brought by the State in Gomez, 2023 WL 7552682, at *4. For the reasons enunciated in Gomez,
we hold that Ramirez Alejo’s claim is cognizable in a pretrial habeas proceeding, that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Ramirez Alejo met his burden of showing a
prima facie claim for selective enforcement on the basis of gender discrimination, and that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the State had not met its burden to justify its
discriminatory conduct under either strict scrutiny (Ramirez Alejo’s state claim) or intermediate
scrutiny (Ramirez Alejo’s federal claim). See id. at *4–6; Ex parte Marcos-Callejas, — S.W.3d
—, No. 04-23-00327-CR, 2024 WL 2164653, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 15, 2024,
no pet. h.); Ex parte Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d 696, 716 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, pet. granted).
Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order granting Ramirez Alejo habeas relief and dismissing
his criminal case with prejudice.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-