KLEINMAN, EX PARTE MICHAEL v. the State of Texas
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Decided
July 30, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Importance
44%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas ════════════ Nos. PD-0966-24 thru PD-0974-24 ════════════ EX PARTE MICHAEL KLEINMAN, Appellant ════════════ Nos. PD-0975-24 thru PD-0980-24 ════════════ EX PARTE AUSPRO ENTERPRISES, L.P., Appellant ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Appellants’ Petitions for Discretionary Review From the Third Court of Appeals Williamson County ═══════════════════════════════════════ YEARY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which SCHENCK, P.J., and RICHARDSON, KEEL, WALKER, MCCLURE, FINLEY, and PARKER, J.J., joined. NEWELL, J., concurred. This case involves pretrial applications for writs of habeas corpus in a group of Class C misdemeanor cases. The court of appeals affirmed KLEINMAN – 2 the county court at law’s denial of relief, not on the merits as the county court at law had, but because Appellants “failed to meet their burden of establishing that they were under a restraint sufficient to justify their requested habeas relief[.]” Kleinman v. State, 706 S.W.3d 391, 398 (Tex. App.—Austin 2024). We granted Appellants’ petitions for discretionary review to examine the court of appeals’ conclusion regarding the “sufficiency” of the restraint. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the cases to that court for further proceedings. I. BACKGROUND Appellant Kleinman and his business entity, Auspro Enterprises, L.P., were charged in separate complaints with fifteen instances of operating a so-called “head shop” in violation of Cedar Park Code of Ordinances, Sections 11.01.032 and 11.02.064—Class C misdemeanors. 1 Both Appellant and his business were convicted in municipal court. They then both appealed, seeking trial de novo in the Williamson County Court at Law No. 5. 2 To effectuate their appeal to the county 1 Kleinman was charged by complaint with nine instances of violation of the ordinances, alleged to have occurred on December 22, 2021, and January 3, January 13, January 20, January 27, February 7, February 11, February 22, and March 1, 2022. Auspro Enterprises was charged by complaint with six instances of violation of the same ordinances, alleged to have occurred on December 22, 2021, and January 27, February 7, February 11, February 22, and March 1, 2022. Operating a “Head Shop” in violation of Cedar Park City Ordinances governing zoning constitutes a Class C misdemeanor, subject to a fine not to exceed $2,000, and each day a violation continues constitutes a separate offense. Code of Ordinances, City of Cedar Park, Texas, Chapter 1, Article 1, Sections 1.01.009, 11.01.032, 11.02.064, 11.08.003 & 11.09.001. 2 See Article 44.17 (providing that in appeals from municipal courts to county courts, “the trial shall be de novo . . . the same as if the prosecution had been originally commenced in that court.”); Article 45.042(b) (recodified as Article 45A.202(b)) (same). KLEINMAN – 3 court at law, as required by statute, they both posted appellate bonds, the sum of which totaled $64,881.72. They next filed pretrial applications for writs of habeas corpus in the county court at law challenging the constitutionality of the city ordinances on vagueness grounds. 3 The county court at law denied relief on the merits of the constitutional challenges, having first concluded in its written findings and conclusions that Appellants were restrained in their liberty for purposes of pursuing pretrial habeas relief by virtue of the cash appeal bonds for their pending criminal charges filed in that court. Appellants then pursued interlocutory appeal of the county court at law’s denial of habeas relief on the merits. The court of appeals affirmed the county court at law’s denial of relief, but it did not even reach the merits of Appellants’ arguments at all. Instead, the court of appeals concluded “that pretrial habeas relief is not available to applicants who have been charged with a fine-only offense and are not in custody or have not been released from custody on bond.” Kleinman, 706 S.W.3d at 398. The court of appeals acknowledged that Appellants had filed appeal bonds to perfect their de novo trial in the county court at law, but it explained that any allusion in the conditions of the appeal bond to All references to “Articles” hereinafter in this opinion refer to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Also, all emphasis is added. 3 “Specifically, they argue that the ordinance provides no objective criteria or guidance regarding what is and is not prohibited and relies on subjective assessments by City employees who h
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
July 30, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
In Kleinman, Ex Parte Michael v. the State of Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas addressed significant issues surrounding pretrial habeas corpus applications. The case, decided on July 30, 2025, involves appellants Michael Kleinman and Auspro Enterprises, who challenged the constitutionality of city ordinances under which they were charged with operating a head shop.
Legal Issues
The court examined several key legal questions:
- Is pretrial habeas corpus relief available to applicants charged with fine-only offenses who are not in custody or have not been released on bond?
- Have the appellants suffered sufficient restraint to justify pretrial habeas corpus review?
- What are the definitions of custody and restraint in the context of habeas corpus applications?
- How does double jeopardy apply to fine-only offenses?
Factual Background
- Charges: Kleinman and Auspro Enterprises faced multiple violations of city ordinances related to operating a head shop, categorized as Class C misdemeanors.
- Appeal Bonds: The appellants posted a total of $64,881.72 in appellate bonds to pursue their appeals, which became central to the court's analysis of restraint.
- Procedural History: The court of appeals denied habeas relief, concluding that pretrial habeas corpus was not available unless the applicants were in custody or had been released on bond.
Court's Analysis
The court's reasoning included the following points:
- The court of appeals concluded that pretrial habeas relief is not available unless applicants are in custody or have been released on bond. However, the court acknowledged that the appellants' potential for re-arrest for non-payment was too speculative to constitute sufficient restraint.
- The court emphasized that Texas law provides a broader definition of restraint that includes collateral consequences of a conviction, allowing for more individuals to seek habeas corpus relief.
- The court distinguished between federal and state definitions of custody and restraint, noting that federal definitions do not encompass fine-only convictions as sufficient restraint.
- The court also clarified that the appellants had not yet been finally convicted, which affects their current status regarding restraint.
Holdings and Decision
The court made several important rulings:
- Reversal of Judgment: The court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the cases for further proceedings, establishing that the interpretation of restraint is critical in determining eligibility for pretrial habeas corpus relief.
- Recognition of Restraint: The court concluded that the appellants are considered restrained under Texas law due to the threat of prosecution and appeal bonds, justifying their application for habeas relief.
Legal Precedents
The court cited several important cases:
- Ex parte Smith, 178 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005): Discusses limited circumstances for pretrial habeas corpus.
- Ex parte Beck, 541 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017): Reiterates that pretrial habeas corpus should not secure pretrial appellate review.
- Ex parte Schmidt, 109 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003): Establishes that statutory county courts can issue habeas corpus for misdemeanor accusations.
- Ex parte Lewis, 219 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007): Discusses double jeopardy protections and fine-only offenses.
Practical Implications
The implications of this ruling are significant for legal practice:
- Broader Access to Habeas Relief: This case sets a precedent for broader access to pretrial habeas corpus relief, particularly for individuals facing fine-only offenses.
- Clarification of Restraint: The court's definitions of custody and restraint will impact future habeas corpus applications, especially in misdemeanor cases.
- Impact on Double Jeopardy: The ruling clarifies the application of double jeopardy protections in the context of fine-only offenses, influencing how such cases are prosecuted moving forward.
This case underscores the evolving landscape of criminal law, constitutional law, and habeas corpus in Texas, particularly regarding the rights of individuals facing misdemeanor charges.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
July 30, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools