Background

• Arrested June 17, 2007 for possession of cocaine; pled guilty two days later (June 19, 2007) under a plea agreement.
• Trial court later held there was no remaining sample for lab testing, rendering lab analysis impossible.
• Evidence relied on presumptive field tests and officer testimony rather than accredited laboratory analysis.
• Article 38.35 requires accredited laboratory analysis for admissibility of forensic evidence; presumptive tests outside labs are inadmissible.
• The lack of testable sample and inadmissible presumptive evidence undermined the conviction and the plea’s knowing and intelligent character.
• The trial court and this Court have previously treated presumptive field test results as insufficient to sustain a conviction and have recognized due process concerns when forensic analysis is unavailable.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Curtis v. State, 548 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (presumptive tests insufficient alone to prove conviction)
• Ex parte Mable, 443 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (no rational defendant would plead guilty where lab analysis unavailable)
• Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (materiality of undisclosed evidence governs relief)
• Ex parte Carmona, 185 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (due process violation where false evidence affects conviction)
• Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (new evidence can undermine reliance on testimony leading to conviction)
• Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (due process when post-plea new evidence shows innocence)
• Curtis v. State, 548 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (unspecified presumptive tests insufficient for conviction)