Pena, Martin
WR-84,073-01
| Tex. Crim. App. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- Applicant Martin Pena pleaded guilty to possession of a Penalty Group 1 (cocaine) offense after an HPD investigation; he later learned HPD officer Carrion had swapped the original cocaine for a cocaine-laced sheetrock material.
- Applicant claims Carrion’s misconduct—a state actor’s tampering—was a falsehood that, if known, would have led him to reject the plea and insist on trial.
- The plea produced the most lenient incarceration available for the charged amount plus a $1,000 fine.
- The plurality concluded Carrion’s conduct did not render the seized cocaine inadmissible or make the evidence legally insufficient for conviction.
- The convicting court recommended finding Applicant would not have pled guilty but provided no detailed factual basis for that conclusion; the majority denied relief without remanding for additional factual development.
- Dissent (Yeary, J.) argues materiality under Ex parte Barnaby requires an inquiry into whether the undisclosed misconduct likely affected the decision to plead and would remand for credibility findings and an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carrion’s misconduct (tampering/swap) constituted false evidence that is material to a guilty plea | Pena: Carrion’s misconduct was a state-actor falsehood that, if known, would have caused him to reject the plea | State: Carrion’s misconduct did not make the contraband inadmissible or change sufficiency of evidence such that the plea decision was affected | Majority: Rejected suppression premise; denied relief without remand for further factfinding |
| Standard for materiality of false evidence in guilty-plea context | Pena: Must show but-for knowledge would have led to trial (per Barnaby) | State: Benefits of plea likely outweighed undisclosed info; applicant’s assertion not persuasive | Court: Applied Barnaby standard but found record insufficient to credit the claim without further findings (dissent would remand) |
| Whether the convicting court’s findings suffice to credit Applicant’s assertion he would have insisted on trial | Pena: Convicting court recommended relief indicating he would not have pled | State: Convicting court struck proposed suppression finding and offered no supporting factual basis | Held: Majority did not accept applicant’s claim on present record; dissent would remand for particularized credibility findings |
| Whether evidence of Carrion’s corruption likely would have produced reasonable doubt at trial | Pena: Corruption could undermine Carrion’s credibility and support a defense of lack of knowledge | State: Facts (oral statement, willful ignorance) and admissibility issues make that scenario unlikely | Majority: Found insufficient to accept claim now; dissent: plausible enough to warrant remand and possible evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Barnaby, 475 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (materiality for false evidence in guilty-plea cases measured by whether undisclosed falsehood affected plea decision)
- Seals v. State, 187 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (adulterants and dilutants may be included in aggregate weight of a controlled substance)
- Jones v. State, 235 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (further interpretation of adulterants/dilutants for weight calculations)