Ex Parte Emad Mikhail Tewfik Bishai, 09-21-00161-CR

Appellant Emad M. T. Bishai was criminally charged in ten indictments alleging unlawful practice of medicine; the trial court consolidated eight for trial. Six indictments challenged here each charge a violation of Tex. Occ. Code § 165.152, relying on § 164.053 for alleged manner and means.
§ 165.152 criminalizes practicing medicine in violation of the Medical Practice Act; conviction can carry up to 10 years’ imprisonment and license forfeiture.
§ 164.053(a) lists examples of “unprofessional or dishonorable conduct,” including (3) prescribing to known or should‑have‑known drug abusers, (5) prescribing nontherapeutic drugs/treatments, and (9) delegating or failing to supervise to unqualified persons.
Bishai filed pretrial habeas applications asserting §§ 165.152 and 164.053 are facially unconstitutionally vague (challenging terms like “abuser,” “nontherapeutic,” and “professional medical responsibility or acts”), and that § 165.152 lacks scienter and determinate guidelines.
The State argued the claims are not cognizable pretrial because other unchallenged indictments remain (so relief would not secure immediate release) and the statutes are presumptively valid.
The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the pretrial writ, holding Bishai’s claims are not cognizable and therefore not reaching the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §§ 165.152 and 164.053 are facially unconstitutionally vague	Bishai: statutory terms (e.g., “abuser,” “nontherapeutic,” “professional medical responsibility”) are undefined and susceptible to subjective interpretation; no scienter or determinate guidelines	State: statutes are presumptively valid and provide sufficient standards; habeas not proper route	Not reached on merits — habeas denied as not cognizable
Whether Bishai’s claims are cognizable via pretrial habeas	Bishai: successful facial challenges would wholly defeat the six indictments, entitling him to pretrial relief	State: even if six indictments were invalidated, other consolidated/unaffected indictments remain and Bishai has adequate remedy by appeal; thus no immediate release	Held not cognizable: denial affirmed because relief would not necessarily produce immediate release or deprive court of power to proceed

Ex parte Couch, 629 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (discusses cognizability when striking part of a statute may not entitle defendant to release)
Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (pretrial habeas is an extraordinary remedy reserved for limited circumstances)
Ex parte Smith, 185 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (pretrial habeas cognizable only if favorable ruling would bar prosecution or produce immediate release)
Ex parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (threshold cognizability must be decided before reaching merits)
Ex parte Ingram, 533 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (reiterating pretrial writ is extraordinary and for protecting substantive rights/conserving resources)
Ex parte Perry, 483 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (sets considerations for when pretrial habeas is appropriate)
Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review: appellate review of trial court’s pretrial habeas ruling is for abuse of discretion)
Johnson v. State, 490 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (explains abuse of discretion as falling outside the zone of reasonable disagreement)