Ex Parte Andrez Zuniga-Gutierrez v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-22-00353-CR
EX PARTE Andrez ZUNIGA-GUTIERREZ
From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas
Trial Court No. 12108CR
Honorable Roland Andrade, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 22, 2023
AFFIRMED
Appellant Andrez Zuniga-Gutierrez appeals the denial of his application for pretrial writ
of habeas corpus. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On January 9, 2022, appellant Andrez Zuniga-Gutierrez was arrested in Kinney County
and charged with criminal trespass. He was appointed counsel and, on January 25, 2022, was
released on bond. On April 14, 2022, the trial court issued a notice of setting for a pretrial hearing
on April 22, 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.”
Zuniga-Gutierrez alleges that after he was released on bond, the United States government
removed him from this country.
04-22-00353-CR
Through counsel, Zuniga-Gutierrez 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 Zuniga-Gutierrez appealed.
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 Zuniga-Gutierrez 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.
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
1
Because Zuniga-Gutierrez 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-