Josue Talavera v. the State of Texas
12-20-00015-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 7, 2021Background
- Talavera was indicted for engaging in organized criminal activity (2017) but pleaded guilty to the lesser-included offense of money laundering and received two years of deferred adjudication community supervision (Sept. 2019).
- The State moved to adjudicate in Dec. 2019, alleging Talavera used marijuana and provided a diluted urine specimen to alter a drug test; Talavera pled not true.
- At the revocation hearing, probation officers testified an on-site urinalysis was positive and the sample appeared unusually clear; the sample was sent to Alere Toxicology for lab testing.
- Alere’s toxicology director testified the lab received a sealed sample with a proper chain-of-custody document, confirmed the sample was diluted (very low creatinine) and, after normalization, showed a positive marijuana result.
- Talavera testified he drank a large amount of water to produce a sample, denied recent drug use (later admitted remote past use), and claimed the sample lid fell on the floor; officers disputed his account.
- The trial court found the State’s allegations true, adjudicated Talavera guilty, revoked community supervision, and sentenced him to two years in state jail; Talavera appealed and proceeded pro se after counsel withdrew.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility / chain of custody for urinalysis results | State: testimony from probation officers and the lab analyst adequately established chain of custody and test results without a certificate of analysis. | Talavera: State had to produce actual lab documentation/certificate; testimony alone insufficient. | Court: Talavera waived contemporaneous objection; even if preserved, testimony satisfied chain-of-custody and authentication—admissible. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to revoke supervision (use of marijuana / dilution) | State: probation officer and lab testimony showed a positive marijuana result and significant dilution consistent with tampering or induced dilution; preponderance of evidence met. | Talavera: testified he only drank water to urinate, denied recent use, and offered alternate explanations for dilution. | Court: As factfinder, trial court believed State’s witnesses; by preponderance of evidence at revocation hearing, allegation proven and revocation proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of appellate review for adjudication and revocation is abuse of discretion)
- Solis v. State, 589 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (State must prove violation by preponderance of evidence at revocation)
- Lake v. State, 577 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (testimony from arresting officer and chemist can establish chain of custody and lab results)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (gaps in chain of custody affect weight, not admissibility, absent tampering)
- Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- LopezGamez v. State, 622 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2020) (chain-of-custody requirement not applied stringently; gaps go to weight)
- Cain v. State, 501 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016) (chain-of-custody links may be proven circumstantially)
- Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (revocation hearings require proof by preponderance, not beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (trial court is sole trier of fact at revocation and assesses witness credibility)
- Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (trial court’s authority to revoke probation is substantially absolute)