Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-23-00637-CR
IN RE Ramon Oniel SARAVIA-BONILLA
Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 18, 2023
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Relator, Ramon Oniel Saravia-Bonilla, is a noncitizen who was arrested under Operation
Lone Star and charged with the misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass. After his arrest, Relator
filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus. In the application, Relator requested the
issuance of a habeas writ, an evidentiary hearing, and dismissal of his underlying charges because,
he alleges, the charges violate equal protection principles. The trial court denied Relator’s habeas
application on June 15, 2023, without issuing a writ or holding a hearing. Relator then filed the
instant petition for writ of mandamus, requesting that we order the trial court to issue a habeas writ
and rule on the merits of Relator’s habeas application. 2
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 11490CR, styled State of Texas v. Ramon Oniel Saravia-Bonilla, pending
in the County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Susan D. Reed presiding.
2
Relator also filed a motion to stay the underlying proceeding pending our final resolution of his mandamus petition,
which we granted.
04-23-00637-CR
MANDAMUS STANDARD
For mandamus relief to be available in a criminal case, a “relator must show two things:
(1) that he has no adequate remedy at law, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial
act.” In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (orig. proceeding); see State ex
rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. App. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)
(orig. proceeding). The ministerial-act requirement “is satisfied if the relator can show a clear right
to the relief sought,” which “is shown when the facts and circumstances dictate but one rational
decision under unequivocal, well-settled . . ., and clearly controlling legal principles.” Bonilla, 424
S.W.3d at 533.
MANDAMUS JURISDICTION
We must first resolve whether the trial court ruled on the merits of Relator’s habeas
application because if it did, then Relator has already received the relief requested in his mandamus
petition, there is no actual controversy before the court that would be resolved by the judicial relief
sought, this proceeding is moot, and the proper remedy is to appeal the order denying Relator’s
habeas application—not to seek mandamus review. See id. at 534 (holding mandamus petition was
moot where relator received relief sought); Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 395 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008) (“[A]n appeal may be prosecuted when a judge issues a ruling on the merits.”); State
Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994) (“[J]urisdiction also depends on
justiciability. And . . . for a controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real controversy between
the parties that will be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought.”); James v. Hubbard, 21
S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (stating that under the mootness doctrine
there must be an actual controversy between the parties at all stages of the proceedings); see also
Bell v. State, 515 S.W.3d 900, 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (per curiam) (citation omitted)
(“Appellate courts must review jurisdiction regardless of whether it is raised by the parties.”).
-2-
04-23-00637-CR
The trial court’s order is comprised of several options it can select as circumstances
warrant. Here, the trial court chose the following:
The Court having considered [the application] is of the opinion same should be:
x the Application is denied without hearing and the writ is not issued[.]
The trial court did not select the following options:
the Application is granted, and an in-person hearing will be held on
the Application is granted, and the merits will be heard by submission
of evidence under the following schedule. . . .
Neither the trial court’s order nor the mandamus record suggest that the trial court ruled on
the merits of Relator’s equal protection claim. See Ex parte Sanchez-Hernandez, Nos. 13-22-
00120-CR, 13-22-00121-CR, 2023 WL 3749555, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg
June 1, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“We review the entire appellate
record to make the determination of whether a court’s denial is merit-based.”); Ex parte Bowers,
35 S.W.3d 926, 927 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. ref’d) (holding that order and record may be
considered to determine whether order was on the merits). Instead, the trial court’s order indicates
that Relator’s habeas application was denied without issuing the writ or the development or
consideration of an evidentiary record.
Because the trial court did not issue a writ or rule on the merits of Relator’s habeas
application, Relator has not received the relief he seeks in the petition he filed in this court, and
there remains a live controversy. See In re Lara Belmontes, No. 04-23-00293-CR, 2023 WL
5249618, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 16, 2023, orig. proceeding).
ANALYSIS
In his mandamus petition, Relator argues that the trial court had a ministerial duty to issue
a writ and rule on the merits of his equal protection claim. If Relator’s underlying habeas claim is
cognizable, he may be entitled to relief. See Click v. State, 39 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Tex. Crim. App.
-3-
04-23-00637-CR
1931); Lara Belmontes, 2023 WL 5249618, at *2; In re Solis, No. 04-04-00050-CV, 2004 WL
1336266, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 16, 2004, orig. proceeding).
On June 21, 2023, we issued an opinion holding that a selective-prosecution equal
protection claim is cognizable in a pre-trial application for writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte
Aparicio, 672 S.W.3d 696, 713 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, pet. granted) (en banc). Relator
asserts a similar claim here. In light of our recent decision, we believe the trial court should have
an opportunity to reconsider its decision not to issue the habeas writ, hold an evidentiary hearing,
or rule on the merits of Relator’s application. See id.; see also Ex parte Lizcano, No. WR-68,348-
034, 2018 WL 2717035, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam, not designated for
publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity
to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a
new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc.,
988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in
order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent. Or. Truck
Co., Inc., 644 S.W.3d 668, 671 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
CONCLUSION
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to Relator’s seeking relief, if
necessary, after the trial court has had an opportunity to reconsider its ruling.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-4-