Cape, John Gabriel, WR-50,358-02

Applicant John Gabriel Cape entered a nolo contendere plea to a reduced charge of simple possession after being originally charged with possession with intent to deliver.
At the time of plea there was only suggestion (from another case) that a confidential informant had planted contraband; no concrete proof he planted evidence in Cape’s case.
The Court’s majority granted habeas relief, concluding Cape’s nolo plea was involuntary; Justice Yeary filed a dissent.
Justice Yeary contends the plea was voluntary because Cape had sufficient awareness of the facts and risks and chose to plead to a lesser charge despite uncertainties.
Yeary argues the proper mechanism is the Coty presumption (inference of false evidence based on proven misconduct in other cases), which shifts burden to the State once certain predicate facts are shown, and that the Court should consider whether a confidential informant counts as a state actor for Coty purposes.
The Court denied relief on Cape’s Ex parte Elizondo actual-innocence claim because he did not show he was innocent of possessing the lesser quantity; the decision relied on State v. Wilson and discussed Ex parte Saucedo distinctions.

Issue	Applicant's Argument	State/Majority's Argument	Held
Whether Cape’s nolo contendere plea was involuntary due to later-discovered possible planting of contraband	Plea involuntary because material evidence may have been false (CI planted contraband), so he would not have pleaded had he known	Plea can be voluntary despite unknown or mistaken facts; majority found involuntary and granted relief	Majority granted relief finding plea involuntary; Yeary dissents and would find plea voluntary
Whether Coty presumption of false evidence (from misconduct in other cases) should apply to misconduct by a confidential informant	Coty should apply to CI misconduct; CI may be a state actor and other-case misconduct can create a rebuttable presumption of false evidence	Court did not apply Coty here; Yeary urges the Court to consider filing/setting to decide CI as state actor under Coty rubric	Court did not apply Coty presumption; Yeary would require Coty analysis before granting relief
Whether Cape is entitled to relief as "actually innocent" under Ex parte Elizondo/Wilson	Cape asserted actual innocence of the greater offense (possession with intent to deliver)	Applicant failed to show innocence of the lesser possession offense he pleaded to; Wilson and Elizondo standards not met	Court denied relief on Elizondo actual-innocence basis; applicant not shown innocent of the offense of conviction

Ex parte Coty, 418 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (establishes presumption/rubric for inferring false evidence from a pattern of misconduct by a state actor and shifting burden to State)
Ex parte Barnaby, 475 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (materiality of false evidence measured by its effect on defendant’s decision to plead guilty)
Ex parte Broussard, 517 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (guilty plea can be voluntary despite defendant’s factual misapprehensions)
Ex parte Palmberg, 491 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (voluntariness not contingent on awareness of full dimension of prosecution’s case)
Ex parte Thompson, 584 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (dissent cited for same voluntariness reasoning as here)
Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (framework for actual-innocence claims post-plea)
State v. Wilson, 324 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (supports limits on "actual innocence" relief for defendants who pleaded guilty)
Ex parte Saucedo, 576 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discusses concept of being "actually not guilty" of greater offense vs. "actually innocent")