Ex parte Joshua Hernandez v. the State of Texas

Summary

In this concurring opinion, Justice Gisela D. Triana agrees that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Joshua Hernandez’s pretrial habeas application. She disagrees with the Court’s conclusion that prosecutorial-vindictiveness claims are not cognizable on pretrial habeas, but concludes that Hernandez’s claim would fail on the merits because he showed neither presumed nor actual prosecutorial vindictiveness.

Holdings

1. The concurring judge would hold that prosecutorial-vindictiveness claims are cognizable on pretrial habeas because delaying review until after trial would effectively undermine the defendant's due-process right not to be prosecuted in retaliation for exercising legal rights.
2. Hernandez failed to establish either presumed or actual prosecutorial vindictiveness.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hernandez's pretrial habeas application.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness is cognizable on pretrial habeas.
2. Whether Hernandez established either a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness or actual prosecutorial vindictiveness.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Hernandez's pretrial habeas application.

Disposition

affirmed