Blas Garza Perez v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 10588
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Perez was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine and sentenced to 15 years and a $2,500 fine.
- An undercover HPD officer (Valles) and a confidential informant identified as "Rene Flores" (real name later revealed as Rene Garcia Salazar) arranged the controlled buy; Perez facilitated contact with suppliers.
- Perez testified he was induced to assist because he believed Valles and Rene needed him as a cooperating informant and that Rene told him the police would pay up to $5,000. Valles denied offering Perez any incentive or agreeing to use him as an informant.
- Pretrial, Perez sought disclosure of the informant’s true identity, criminal history, and any incentives (invoking Tex. R. Evid. 508 and Brady). The trial judge denied disclosure after an in-camera hearing.
- During trial the State voluntarily disclosed the informant’s identity when Rene Garcia Salazar was brought into court and identified by Valles; Perez did not call Rene, request a continuance, or object further and rested his case.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding Perez waived his Brady and Rule 508 complaints by failing to object or seek a continuance after the informant’s in-court identification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying disclosure of informant’s identity/background under Tex. R. Evid. 508 | Perez: identity and background of "Rene" were discoverable and necessary to present entrapment/exculpatory evidence | State: informant was confidential; trial court properly denied disclosure after in-camera review | Affirmed — Perez waived the complaint by not objecting or requesting continuance after in-court identification |
| Whether State violated Brady by not producing informant’s identity/criminal history/incentives | Perez: withheld exculpatory Brady material that could affect guilt/punishment | State: identity was disclosed during trial; Perez suffered no prejudice and failed to request continuance | Affirmed — Brady claim waived because Perez received identity during trial and did not seek relief or continuance |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose material, favorable evidence)
- Sanchez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (standard of review for confidential-informant disclosure; preservation rule)
- Apolinar v. State, 106 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (failure to request continuance waives Brady claim when evidence disclosed at trial)
- Little v. State, 991 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (prejudice requirement for Brady: reasonable probability outcome would differ)
- Palmer v. State, 902 S.W.2d 561 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (timely disclosure during trial cures due process concerns if defendant can use it effectively)