Visiting District Judge Stephen Ables denied a motion to quash the prosecution of East Side city Rep. Rachel Quintana Friday morning. Quintana's lawyer, Stephen Peters, had argued that she is being selectively prosecuted because of her office, which in effect abridges her right to seek and hold office.

Peters was quoted in the El Paso Times as saying that he planned to appeal the decision.

The following are highlights of the filings, which can be accessed via the links below.

"Petitioner believes the evidence will show that virtually all persons similarly situated in El Paso County, Texas – that is, persons with no prior arrest records charged as misdemeanants with forgery or similar crimes such as theft or fraud – are offered or permitted to enter the Pre-Trial Diversion Program (“PTD”), whose participants are not prosecuted if they complete the program and avoid committing other alleged crimes during the term of the program. Rather, upon completion of the program, a participant’s charges are dismissed," states the motion.

"Petitioner also expects that the evidence will show that she is being denied the benefit of this program in whole or in part because she is exercising the right, protected by the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the State of Texas, to serve in a public office to which she has been elected. As such, she is being deprived of equal protection and under the law, as well as due process of law, in derogation of her rights under the 14th Amendment."

The response from District Attorney Jaime Esparza and Assistant District Attorney John Davis did not deny that Quintana was being held to a higher standard.

"Tthe State represents that neither PTD nor deferred-adjudication probation was offered (or will be offered) in Quintana’s case for the following reasons: (1) Quintana is an elected official and, as such, her conduct should be held to a higher standard; (2) she should have known better than to engage in the conduct that she did; (3) the offense involved a high level of sophistication, planning, and determined intent; and (4) it is the type of case that a jury should decide," states the response from the district attorney's office.

However, the reply denied that this constitutes selective enforcement.

"The decision of the prosecutor to prosecute a given case supported by probable cause to believe that the accused has committed an offense defined by statute is limited only in that the actual decision to prosecute cannot be based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, or upon the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights," states the reply.

"Moreover, while the State denies that Quintana was charged because she was on City Council or because she professed any certain views or voted any certain way on any issue, it should be noted that case law holds that a defendant’s general prominence in the community is an appropriate matter for consideration when deciding whether to prosecute."

Related Documents: