Owens, James Edward Iii, 515 S.W.3d 891

In 2006 Harris County troopers stopped a car and found ~3 pounds of marijuana and a pistol in a speaker box; Owens admitted the marijuana was his and said he paid $1,000 for it. Trooper Granelli weighed the seized marijuana before submission to the lab.
DPS-Houston technician Jonathan Salvador tested the marijuana in July 2006. Years later investigators discovered Salvador had engaged in misconduct (including dry-labbing and misidentifications) in other cases; he was terminated in 2012.
Salvador’s misconduct prompted multiple habeas proceedings; this Court adopted a falsity-and-materiality framework in Ex parte Coty and clarified materiality in Ex parte Barnaby.
Owens pleaded guilty in November 2006 to possession (deferred adjudication); his plea was later used to enhance out-of-state charges, so he sought habeas relief after Salvador’s misconduct was revealed.
The habeas trial court found Owens failed to establish falsity or materiality under Coty/Barnaby; this Court independently reviewed the record and affirmed denial of relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Owens)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Owens raised a presumption of falsity under Coty	Salvador’s proven pattern of lab misconduct implies the marijuana test was false	Salvador did not commit intentional misconduct affecting marijuana testing in Owens’s case	Owens did not meet Coty’s falsity requirement (factors 4–5 not satisfied)
Whether any presumed falsity was material to Owens’s guilty plea	Knowing the report was false, Owens would have refused the plea and gone to trial	The plea bargain’s benefits and other strong evidence meant lab results were not material	The alleged falsity was not material; plea would likely have been accepted regardless
Whether dry-labbing/misrepresentations in other substance tests apply here	Misrepresentation is a common pattern—apply to all Salvador cases	Cocaine/alprazolam testing methods differ from marijuana; relevant misconduct was not contemporaneous or of the same type	Misconduct in other cases (dry-labbing) was not the same type nor roughly contemporaneous; not probative here
Sufficiency of non-lab evidence to support conviction absent lab report	Lab report was necessary to prove quantity/identity	Troopers observed, smelled, and weighed the marijuana; Owens admitted possession	Non-lab evidence (officers’ observations, admission, in-field weighing) was sufficient; lab report not outcome-determinative

Ex parte Coty, 418 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (announcing five-factor test for raising an inference of falsity and burden-shifting framework)
Ex parte Barnaby, 475 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (holding materiality measured by impact on decision to plead guilty)
Ex parte Turner, 394 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (granting relief in Salvador-related cases where appropriate)
Ex parte Hobbs, 393 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Salvador-related relief in early prosecutions)
Ex parte Flores, 387 S.W.3d 626 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (court’s authority to make contrary findings on independent review)
Ex parte Reed, 271 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standard deference to habeas court fact findings)
Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (lay witness/officer testimony can suffice to identify marijuana)
Deshong v. State, 625 S.W.2d 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (officer testimony sufficient to prove substance was marijuana)