513 S.W.3d 175
Tex. App.2016Background
- In 2006 Jacob Estrada was charged with possession; forensic chemist Jonathan Salvador tested evidence and Estrada pleaded guilty in 2007.
- DPS notified prosecutors in April 2012 that Salvador may have falsified results; Fort Bend prosecutors (Healey and Hanna) submitted a list for retesting but Estrada’s sample had been destroyed in July 2012.
- Fort Bend DA’s office notified Estrada of Salvador’s alleged misconduct in March 2013; Estrada filed habeas in October 2013 and the Court of Criminal Appeals set aside his conviction in June 2014.
- The State Bar Commission filed disciplinary actions (2015) against Healey and Hanna alleging violations of Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 3.09(d) for delayed disclosure of potentially exculpatory information.
- Healey and Hanna moved to dismiss under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a, arguing Rule 3.09(d) does not impose a post-conviction disclosure duty; the trial court granted the motions and the Commission appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 3.09(d) imposes a post‑conviction duty to disclose evidence that tends to negate guilt or mitigate the offense | Rule 3.09(d) contains no express pre‑conviction limitation and therefore applies post‑conviction | Rule 3.09(d) was drafted to govern pre‑trial/accused stage; it does not impose a post‑conviction duty | Rule 3.09(d) did not impose a post‑conviction disclosure duty as to the conduct at issue, so the Commission’s claims have no basis in law |
| Whether prior guidance or model‑rule amendments require reading Rule 3.09(d) to reach post‑conviction conduct | Commission cites ethical commentary and Imbler language to support post‑conviction duty | Defendants note ABA amended Model Rule 3.8 in 2008 to add explicit post‑conviction duties — implying the pre‑2008 wording did not reach post‑conviction — and Texas did not adopt those amendments | Court relied on identical pre‑2008 wording, lack of Texas amendment or caselaw, and guidance ambiguity to reject retroactive expansion of Rule 3.09(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. Beatty, 290 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. 2009) (standard for consolidating appeals)
- Ex parte Hobbs, 393 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (DPS lab misconduct may require relief)
- Ex parte Coty, 418 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (two‑step test for false evidence: falsity and materiality)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (prosecutorial ethical comments regarding after‑acquired information)
- Merrick v. Helter, 500 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016) (Rule 91a dismissal where claim requires change in existing law)