Sonya Kay Hargett v. State, 472 S.W.3d 931

Sonya Kay Hargett pled guilty to DWI and received five years’ community supervision under a plea agreement; a 10-year sentence and $4,000 fine were suspended.
The State alleged Hargett violated supervision by ingesting methamphetamine and alcohol; revocation hearing followed.
Tommy Thompson, director of “THE Lab,” testified about a laboratory confirmatory analysis of Hargett’s urine showing methamphetamine, amphetamine, and ethyl glucuronide.
Hargett objected under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.35 because THE Lab was not accredited by the DPS director; the trial court overruled, treating the revocation as noncriminal/quasi‑civil and admitting the results.
The Court of Appeals concluded art. 38.35 applies to community‑supervision revocation proceedings, THE Lab did not meet the art. 38.35 exception for presumptive tests or eligible agencies/contracts, and the erroneously admitted test was the State’s sole proof of violation.

Issue	Hargett's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Art. 38.35 applies to community‑supervision revocation proceedings	Art. 38.35 governs because revocations are judicial and related to punishment	Revocations are quasi‑civil/administrative, so Art. 38.35 does not apply	Art. 38.35 applies; revocations are judicial proceedings (Ex parte Doan controls)
Whether the lab results/expert testimony were admissible absent DPS director accreditation	Evidence inadmissible because THE Lab lacked DPS director accreditation required by Art. 38.35	Admissible under statutory exception for presumptive tests or because lab contracted with county/eligible agency	Not admissible: THE Lab was not accredited; exception did not apply (test was confirmatory, lab not an eligible agency, no proven contract)
Whether the statutory presumptive‑test exception covered these results	The test was confirmatory, not presumptive, so exception inapplicable	The exception applies to supervision testing generally	Exception did not apply; this was a lab confirmatory test, not a presumptive field test
Whether the erroneous admission was harmful	Admission affected substantial rights because it was the only evidence of violation	Admission harmless or harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Harmful: State’s sole evidence of violation; reversal required

Ex parte Doan, 369 S.W.3d 205 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (community‑supervision revocations are judicial proceedings)
Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard for reversible evidentiary error)
Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Rule 44.2(b) harmless‑error framework for nonconstitutional error)
King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (definition of substantial right in harm analysis)
Smith v. State, 874 S.W.2d 720 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (distinguishing presumptive/field tests from confirmatory laboratory tests)

Result: Reversed the revocation judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.