Summary
The Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's denial of a pretrial writ of habeas corpus filed by Miguel Vasquez Hernandez. The appellant alleged that his criminal trespass prosecution under Operation Lone Star constituted unlawful selective prosecution based on gender, violating equal protection guarantees. Relying on precedent regarding selective prosecution claims, the court found the record insufficient to prove the policy was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. The court accordingly upheld the trial court's order and dismissed pending motions as moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a selective prosecution claim is cognizable in a pretrial habeas corpus proceeding
- Whether the appellant proved the discriminatory purpose required for selective prosecution
Holdings
- The claim is cognizable on appeal.
- The appellant failed to show the discriminatory purpose; the trial court did not err.
Key quotations
“To establish a prima facie case of “selective prosecution or selective enforcement, the claimant must prove with ‘exceptionally clear evidence’ that: 1. The prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect; and 2. it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.”” (at 204)
“That rule holds true even if the trial court gave the wrong reason for its ruling.” (at 404)
Factual background
Appellant was arrested for misdemeanor criminal trespass during Operation Lone Star and alleged that the State selectively prosecuted men but not similarly situated women, claiming a violation of the Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. and Texas constitutions.
Procedural history
The County Court, Kinney County, Texas denied Appellant’s habeas application (Trial Court No. 12668CR). Appellant appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals.