David Daniel Rodriguez v. State, 14-15-00531-CR

Defendant David Daniel Rodriguez was charged with misdemeanor possession of <24 grams of alprazolam (Xanax); he pleaded not guilty and was convicted by a jury; sentenced to 125 days in jail.
Police found Rodriguez unconscious/slumped in the driver’s seat of a stopped Mercedes; officers handcuffed and removed him from the car during welfare/safety checks.
Officer Vargas searched Rodriguez incident to arrest for public intoxication and found one small white pill in his pocket; two additional pills were found later at the jail.
Forensic analyst tested the pills, opined they were alprazolam but reported a retention time (9.795) close to that for diltiazem and acknowledged possible contamination from a cup holder.
Defense requested a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of attempted possession (statutory lesser-included by Art. 37.09), arguing the evidence raised doubt that the pills were actually alprazolam; the trial court denied the instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempted possession of a controlled substance	State: evidence supported conviction for actual possession of alprazolam (chemical testing and officer testimony)	Rodriguez: chemist’s results were equivocal/subject to contamination; some evidence supported only attempted possession, so the jury should have been instructed on that lesser offense	Trial court denied the requested lesser-included instruction; appellant argues this was reversible error and requests reversal and a new trial

Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (harm analysis for jury-charge errors)
Olivas v. State, 202 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (preservation and harm rules for charge error)
Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (standard for preserved charge error reversal)
Forest v. State, 989 S.W.2d 365 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (lesser-included instruction entitlement: more than a scintilla standard)
Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (jury charge must include lesser offense if evidence raises issue regardless of strength)
Bignall v. State, 887 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) ("more than a scintilla" suffices for lesser-included)
Robertson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (evidence subject to different interpretations can require lesser instruction)
Bridges v. State, 389 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (failure to submit lesser-included can be harmful under facts)