Ex Parte Dimas Salas Rodriguez
13-15-00347-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 15, 2016Background
- Rodriguez was arrested for DWI; officer searched him incident to arrest and found cocaine. The State charged DWI (misdemeanor) and possession with intent to deliver (felony).
- The State later dismissed the DWI charge but retained the cocaine charge; the record does not disclose the State’s reason for dismissal.
- Rodriguez filed a motion to suppress the cocaine; before that motion was heard, he sought a pretrial writ of habeas corpus asking the court to stay the suppression hearing and summarily dismiss the cocaine charge.
- Rodriguez argued the dismissal of the DWI amounted to the State’s admission that the arrest lacked probable cause, and thus the State was estopped from defending the search.
- The trial court denied the pretrial habeas application; Rodriguez appealed interlocutorily. The suppression motion remains pending in the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pretrial habeas petition may be used to assert collateral estoppel based on the State's dismissal of a related charge | Rodriguez: dismissal of DWI is an effective admission that the arrest/search lacked probable cause, so State should be estopped from defending the cocaine charge | State: (implicit) dismissal does not constitute a final adjudication of facts that would bar relitigation; habeas is not the proper vehicle absent double jeopardy collateral estoppel | Court: Habeas not cognizable for collateral estoppel claim here because it does not raise double jeopardy principles; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Paxton, 493 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2016) (pretrial habeas and interlocutory review are extraordinary remedies)
- Ex parte Perry, 483 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (limits on pretrial habeas; reserved for protecting substantive rights or conserving judicial resources)
- Ex parte Watkins, 73 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (collateral estoppel cognizable pretrial only when based on double jeopardy principles)
- Headrick v. State, 988 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (collateral estoppel claim not cognizable on pretrial habeas absent double jeopardy issue)
- Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (adequate remedy by appeal counsels against pretrial habeas)