Ex Parte Juan Gabriel Colorado Carrillo v. the State of Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-22-00259-CR
EX PARTE Juan Gabriel COLORADO CARRILLO
From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas
Trial Court No. 10367CR
Honorable Roland Andrade, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 22, 2023
AFFIRMED
Appellant Juan Gabriel Colorado Carrillo appeals the denial of his application for pretrial
writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2021, appellant Juan Gabriel Colorado Carrillo was arrested in Kinney
County and charged with criminal trespass. He was appointed counsel and, on October 1, 2021,
was released on bond. On April 14, 2022, the trial court issued a notice of setting for a pretrial
hearing on April 29, 2022, and for a jury trial on May 9, 2022. The notice states: “Failure to appear
may result in Bond Forfeiture and a Warrant of Arrest.”
Colorado Carrillo alleges that after he was released on bond, the United States government
removed him from this country.
04-22-00259-CR
Through counsel, Colorado Carrillo filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking
dismissal of the charges against him for purported violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments
to the United States Constitution and Articles I, sections 10 and 19, and V, section 1, of the Texas
Constitution, alleging deprivations of due process and of his right to counsel. 1 He argued the State
coordinated his removal with the federal government, leaving him unable to return to the United
States for his trial setting.
The trial court denied habeas relief, and Colorado Carrillo appealed. On May 4, 2022, we
stayed all proceedings in the trial court pending our decision on appeal.
DISCUSSION
In Ex parte Dominguez Ortiz, we considered and rejected the argument that a noncitizen
habeas applicant, arrested on criminal trespass charges under Operation Lone Star, was entitled to
dismissal of the charges against him after being released on bond and removed from the country.
___ S.W.3d ___, No. 04-22-00260-CR, 2023 WL 1424651 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 1, 2023,
no pet. h.) (en banc) (op. on reh’g). We concluded that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims the
appellant asserted in that appeal were not cognizable by pretrial writ of habeas corpus. Id. at *7–
8. The claims Colorado Carrillo asserts in this case are similar to those we addressed in Dominguez
Ortiz. For the reasons described in that opinion, we affirm the trial court’s order denying habeas
relief and lift the May 4, 2022 stay. 2
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
1
Because Colorado Carrillo did not separately argue his state and federal constitutional claims or argue that the Texas
Constitution provides different or broader protections than the United States Constitution, we address appellant’s
claims solely on federal constitutional grounds. See Bohannan v. State, 546 S.W.3d 166, 179 n.7 (Tex. Crim. App.
2017); Jackson v. State, 992 S.W.2d 469, 475 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
2
We deny the State’s “Motion for Involuntary Dismissal of the Instant Appeal Based on the False Impression Created
by Appellant’s Pleadings and Argument,” and the State’s motion to strike Colorado Carrillo’s reply brief. See
Dominguez Ortiz, 2022 WL 17480465 at *4 n.2, *7 n.7.
-2-