Palmberg, Bryan Elliott, 2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 50

Background

Applicant pled guilty in 2007 to possession of a controlled substance (charged as cocaine) and was sentenced to 90 days; no direct appeal was taken.
Officer performed a presumptive field test that indicated cocaine; the officer used the entire visible sample during the field test.
No unprocessed sample remained for laboratory confirmation; the crime lab discovered this in 2009 and sent a letter to the DA, which was not disclosed to Applicant until 2014.
Applicant filed an Article 11.07 habeas application in 2015 arguing his plea was involuntary because he believed confirmatory lab testing would be available at trial.
The State and the trial court agreed Applicant was entitled to relief; the majority of this Court denied relief, while a dissent would have granted it.

Issues

Issue	Applicant's Argument	State's / Majority's Argument	Held
Whether a guilty plea is involuntary when the defendant reasonably believed specific inculpatory evidence (lab test) would be available but it was not	Plea involuntary because, had Applicant known no lab confirmation existed, he would not have pled guilty	A plea is not necessarily involuntary for lack of knowledge of specific evidence; voluntariness requires sufficient awareness of circumstances, not complete knowledge	Denied — plea not involuntary absent misrepresentation or counsel ineffectiveness
Whether Brady or nondisclosure by the State requires vacatur when evidence unavailable post-plea	Applicant analogizes to Brady nondisclosure — the unavailability of lab testing was material and would have prevented plea	Majority: Brady protects trial fairness; Ruiz limits pre-plea disclosure obligations; here State did not know of unavailability at plea	Denied — no Brady violation shown because State lacked knowledge at plea
Whether actual innocence or newly discovered evidence doctrine applies	Applicant: absence of testable evidence undermines his conviction and plea	Majority: no new exculpatory evidence showing innocence; judicial confession remained intact	Denied — no clear and convincing new evidence of innocence
Whether ineffective assistance of counsel could render plea involuntary	Applicant suggests counsel might have failed to investigate lab testing	Majority: ineffective-assistance claim not raised or developed; absent record of counsel's failure, voluntariness stands	Not decided on merits — claim not asserted in this application

Key Cases Cited

Ruiz v. United States, 536 U.S. 622 (Sup. Ct.) (pretrial disclosure of impeachment material not required for voluntary plea bargaining)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (Sup. Ct.) (plea involuntary if induced by threats, misrepresentation, or improper promises)
McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (Sup. Ct.) (pleas are not rendered vulnerable by later-discovered errors in assessment of admissibility)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (Sup. Ct.) (guilty plea waives significant constitutional rights; plea must be voluntary)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (Sup. Ct.) (defendant must have sufficient awareness of relevant circumstances when pleading guilty)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (Sup. Ct.) (plea may be valid even when defendant maintains innocence if evidence of guilt is compelling)
Ex parte Mable, 443 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App.) (post-plea lab testing showing no illicit substance can render plea involuntary)
Ex parte Barnaby, 475 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. Crim. App.) (materiality inquiry: whether undisclosed or false evidence likely affected decision to plead)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Sup. Ct.) (prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence at trial)