## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TE XAS

N O

. W R

- 8 2

, 8 7 6

- 0 1

E X P A R T E B R Y A N E L L I O T T P A L M B E R G

, A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S

I N C A U S E N O

. 1 1 2 1 3 4 5

- A F R O M T H E

1 7 9 T H D I S T R I C T C O U R T O F H A R R I S C O U N T Y

Y E A R Y

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n f o r t h e C o u r t i n w h i c h K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , a n d

K E A S L E R

, H E R V E Y

, R IC H A R D S O N

, a n d N E W E L L

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. A L C A L A

, J

. , f i l e d a

d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h M E Y E R S a n d J O H N S O N

, J J

. , j o i n e d

.

O P I N I O N

A p p l i c a n t p l e d g u i l t y t o o n e c o u n t o f p o s s e s s i o n o f a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e

, n a m e l y

c o c a i n e

, a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t s e n t e n c e d h i m t o n i n e t y d a y s ’ c o n f i n e m e n t i n c o u n t y j a i l

. H e d i d

n o t a p p e a l h i s c o n v i c t i o n

. S e v e n a n d a h a l f y e a r s l a t e r

, h o w e v e r

, A p p l i c a n t f i l e d t h e i n s t a n t

p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s u n d e r A r t i c l e 1 1

. 0 7 o f t h e T e x a s C o d ePAL MBERG — 2

o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e

. T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O

. a r t

. 1 1

. 0 7

. H e n o w c l a i m s h i s g u i l t y p l e a w a s 1

i n v o l u n t a r y b e c a u s e

, a t t h e t i m e h e e n t e r e d i t

, h e m i s t a k e n l y b e l i e v e d t h a t

, i f h e p r o c e e d e d

t o t r i a l

, t h e S t a t e w o u l d b e a b l e t o p r o v e t h e s u b s t a n c e h e p o s s e s s e d w a s c o c a i n e

. W h e n t h i s

C o u r t r e c e i v e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

, w e r e m a n d e d i t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r s u p p l e m e n t a l f

i n d i n g s

o f f a c t

. A f t e r r e m a n d

, w e o r d e r e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t o b e f i l e d a n d s e t f

o r s u b m i s s i o n t o 2

d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a g u i l t y p l e a i s i n v o l u n t a r y w h e n t h e d e f e n d a n t m i s t a k e n l y b e l i e v e s t h a t

c e r t a i n i n c u l p a t i n g e v i d e n c e w o u l d b e a v a i l a b l e f o r u s e a g a i n s t h i m s h o u l d h e p r o c e e d t o

t r i a l

. W e a l s o r e q u i r e d t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s b r i e f t h e i s s u e

.

B A C K G R O U N D

O n J u n e 1 7

, 2 0 0 7

, H o u s t o n P o l i c e O f f i c e r J

. C

. M a s a b a s a w A p p l i c a n t t r e s p a s s i n g a t

a B u r g e r K i n g r e s t a u r a n t i n H a r r i s C o u n t y

. M a s a b a n o t i c e d t h a t a p p l i c a n t s e e m e d i n t o x i c a t e d

a n d a r r e s t e d h i m f

o r p u b l i c i n t o x i c a t i o n

. S e a r c h i n g A p p l i c a n t i n c i d e n t t o t h e a r r e s t

, M a s a b a

Applicant was convicted of a state jail felony

. T E X

. H E A L T H A N D S A F E T Y C O D E § 481.115 1

(b). He was sentenc ed to ninety day s’ confine ment in county jail, howeve r, which is less than t he

time require d under a state jail felony punishment. See T E X

. P E N A L C O D E §12.35(a) (punishment for

a state jail felony is “any term of not more than two y ear s or less than 180 day s”). Un der cer tain

conditions “ a court may punish a defe ndant who is convicted of a state jail f elony by imposing the

confine ment permissible as punishment f or a Class A misdemeanor[.]” T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 12.44

(a)

. I n Ex parte Sparks

, we held that a felony convic tion is all that an applicant must show for a claim

to be cog nizable in post-conviction habea s corp u s proce eding s, even if the actua l offe nse was a

misdemeanor. 206 S.W .3d 680, 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Take n to get h er, Section 12.44(a) of

the Penal Code and Sparks support the proposition that a state jail felony conviction that is punished

as if it wer e a Class A misdemeanor is still subject to collater al at t ac k i n an Article 11.07 postconviction applica tion for writ of ha beas c orpus.

The purpose of the rema

nd was to allow the trial court to make a deter mination whether the 2

s u b s t an ce found on Applicant’s person at the time of arr est had been analy zed by a fore ns i c

labora tory

.PAL MBERG — 3

f o u n d a s u b s t a n c e i n A p p l i c a n t ’ s l e f t f r o n t p a n t s p o c k e t

. M a s a b a c o n d u c t e d a f i e l d

- t e s t o n

t h e s u b s t a n c e a n d

, b a s e d o n t h e t e s t r e s u l t s

, t e n t a t i v e l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e w a s

c o c a i n e

. T w o d a y s l a t e r

, A p p l i c a n t w a i v e d h i s r i g h t t o b e c h a r g e d b y i n d i c t m e n t a n d w a s

c h a r g e d b y i n f

o r m a t i o n w i t h t h e s t a t e j a i l f e l o n y o f f e n s e o f p o s s e s s i o n o f a P e n a l t y G r o u p

1 c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e i n a n a m o u n t l e s s t h a n a g r a m

. T E X

. H E A LT H & S A F E T Y C O D E §

4 8 1

. 1 1 5 ( b )

. O n t h a t s a m e d a y

, J u n e 1 9

, 2 0 0 7

, h e e n t e r e d a j u d i c i a l c o n f e s s i o n a n d p l e d g u i l t y

t o t h a t o f f e n s e a n d w a s s e n t e n c e d t o c o n f i n e m e n t f

o r n i n e t y d a y s i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l

, w h i c h h e

s u b s e q u e n t l y s e r v e d

. A p p l i c a n t n o w a l l e g e s h e h a s s u f f e r e d

, a n d c o n t i n u e s t o s u f f e r

, 3

c o l l a t e r a l c o n s e q u e n c e s s t e m m i n g f r o m h i s c o n v i c t i o n

. H e c l a i m s h e i s s u s c e p t i b l e t o d e n i a l

o f h o u s i n g a n d d e n i a l o f f e d e r a l a n d s t a t e b e n e f

i t s

, a s w e l l a s u s e o f t h e c o n v i c t i o n f o r f u t u r e

p u n i s h m e n t e n h a n c e m e n t s a n d a s a b a s i s t o d e n y p a r o l e o r t o i n c r e a s e o r d e n y b a i l

. H e a l s o

c l a i m s o t h e r e c o n o m i c

, e m o t i o n a l

, a n d p h y s i c a l d i s a d v a n t a g e s

.

O n S e p t e m b e r 1 4

, 2 0 0 9

— r o u g h l y t w o y e a r s a f t e r t h e g u i l t y p l e a

— a l a b o r a t o r y a n a l y s t

f o r t h e H o u s t o n P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t a t t e m p t e d t o a n a l y z e t h e s u b s t a n c e f o u n d o n A p p l i c a n t

a t t h e t i m e o f h i s a r r e s t

. B u t

, b e c a u s e M a s a b a h a d u s e d u p a l l o f t h e s u b s t a n c e f o u n d o n

A p p l i c a n t a t t h e t i m e o f h i s a r r e s t f o r p r e s u m p t i v e t e s t i n g

, t h e r e w a s n o r e m a i n i n g

u n p r o c e s s e d s a m p l e a v a i l a b l e f o r l a b o r a t o r y a n a l y s i s

. F o r t h i s r e a s o n

, i t c o u l d n o t b e

c o n f i r m e d w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e s u b s t a n c e a c t u a l l y w a s c o c a i n e

. T h e n e x t d a y

, S e p t e m b e r 1 5

,

2 0 0 9

, t h e H o u s t o n P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t C r i m e L a b o r a t o r y s e n t a l e t t e r t o t h e H a r r i s C o u n t y

I n his judicial confe ssion, Applicant asser ted that he understood t h e al l egations in the 3

indictment ag ainst him and confe ssed that “they are true[.] ”PAL MBERG — 4

D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y e x p l a i n i n g t h a t

, w h e n M a s a b a c o n d u c t e d t h e f i e l d

- t e s t

, h e u s e d t h e e n t i r e

v i s i b l e s u b s t a n c e f

o u n d o n A p p l i c a n t

, a n d t h e r e w a s n o u n p r o c e s s e d s a m p l e l e f t o v e r f o r t h e

l a b o r a t o r y t o a n a l y z e

. A p p l i c a n t w a s u n a w a r e o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n a t t h e t i m e o f h i s p l e a

. 4

M o r e t h a n f

o u r y e a r s l a t e r

, o n M a y 2 7

, 2 0 1 4

, t h e H a r r i s C o u n t y D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y ’ s O f f i c e

l o c a t e d t h e l e t t e r t h a t w a s s e n t f r o m t h e l a b o r a t o r y a n d f o r w a r d e d i t a t t h a t t i m e t o t h e H a r r i s

C o u n t y P u b l i c D e f

e n d e r ’ s O f

f i c e

. O n J a n u a r y 2 7

, 2 0 1 5

, A p p l i c a n t f i l e d t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r 5

w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s

, c o n t e n d i n g t h a t h i s p l e a w a s i n v o l u n t a r y

.

A p p l i c a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t h i s p l e a o f g u i l t y w a s i n v o l u n t a r y b e c a u s e

, h a d h e k n o w n a t

t h e t i m e o f

t h e p l e a t h a t n o n e o f t h e s u b s t a n c e f o u n d o n h i s p e r s o n w a s l e f t t o b e t e s t e d i n a

l a b o r a t o r y

, h e w o u l d n o t h a v e p l e d g u i l t y

. H e c l a i m s t h a t

, w i t h o u t t h e l a b o r a t o r y a n a l y s i s o f

t h e s u b s t a n c e

, t h e S t a t e w o u l d h a v e h a d n o e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l

. T h e S t a t e a g r e e s t h a t t h e 6

The trial court’s orig inal rec ommended finding s of fac t err oneously stated that the sample 4

was analy zed and that the analy sis did not indicate the prese nce of any controlled subst an ce

. This

Court remande d to the trial court to c larify the contra diction be tween the trial court’s f indings a nd

the letter sent from the Houston Police Depa rtment Crime L abora tory

. I t has now been deter mined

t h at the letter depicts the acc urate version of events reg arding the sample: The labora tory did not

analy ze the substance be cause there was no unproc essed sa mple left to ana ly ze.

I t is unclea

r from the rec ord why

, afte r rec eiving the letter in 2 0 0 9

, t h e Ha rris County 5

District Attorney ’s Offic e did not forwa rd it immediately instead of almost five y ear s later. The State

claims it located the letter during a “compr ehensive revie w of controlled substance varia nce case s,”

but this does not e x plain why it wa s not disc losed to Applicant during the five y ear s prec eding the

compre hensive revie w. I t is possible that the State simply d i d n o t think that such information,

discovere d two y ear s after the g uilty

plea, wa s signific ant in 2009—five y ear s befor e our de cision

in Ex parte Mable

, 4 4 3 S

. W

. 3 d 1 2 9

, 1 3 1 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 4 )

. Reg ardle ss, there seems to

have be en no vindi ctiveness on the part of t he S tate, a notion further substantiate d by the fa ct that

the State turned the letter ove r immediately upon the discover

y in 2014.

The trial court’s rec ommended conclusions of law include a conclusion that the results of 6

a presumptive chemica l field test perf ormed by an office r in the field is inad m i s s i b l e at trial. ForPAL MBERG — 5

d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t a g r e e d t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n t o p l e a d g u i l t y w a s n o t 7

a v o l u n t a r y a n d i n t e l l i g e n t c h o i c e a n d r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t h i s C o u r t a l l o w A p p l i c a n t t o

w i t h d r a w h i s p l e a i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h E x p a r t e M

a b l e

, 4 4 3 S

. W

. 3 d 1 2 9

, 1 3 1 ( T e x

. C r i m

.

A p p

. 2 0 1 4 )

.

T H E L A W

A n a g r e e m e n t t o p l e a d g u i l t y e n t a i l s a w a i v e r o f t h r e e s i g n i f i c a n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s :

T h e r i g h t a g a i n s t s e l f i n c r i m i n a t i o n ; t h e r i g h t t o c o n f r o n t a t i o n ; a n d t h e r i g h t t o a t r i a l b y j u r y

.

B o y k i n v

. A l a b a m a

, 3 9 5 U

. S

. 2 3 8

, 2 4 3 ( 1 9 6 9 )

. B e c a u s e s u c h s i g n i f i c a n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s

a r e a t s t a k e

, d u e p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e i r r e l i n q u i s h m e n t i n t h e c o u r s e o f a g u i l t y p l e a b e

u n d e r t a k e n v o l u n t a r i l y

, w i t h s u f f i c i e n t a w a r e n e s s o f t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s

. M c C a r t h y v

. U n i t e d

S t a t e s

, 3 9 4 U

. S

. 4 5 9

, 4 6 6 ( 1 9 6 9 )

. A d e f e n d a n t “ m u s t h a v e s u f f i c i e n t a w a r e n e s s o f t h e

r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, ” a n d m u s t p o s s e s s a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e l a w i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e

f a c t s

. I d

. T o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a d e f e n d a n t ’ s “ a w a r e n e s s ” w a s “ s u f f i c i e n t ” a t t h e t i m e o f h i s

p l e a

, a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t l o o k s t o w h e t h e r t h e p l e a w a s a v o l u n t a r y a n d i n t e l l i g e n t c h o i c e

a m o n g t h e a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s o f a c t i o n o p e n t o t h e d e f e n d a n t

. S t a t e v

. G u e r r e r o

, 4 0 0 S

. W

. 3 d

5 7 6

, 5 8 8 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 3 )

.

B u t a d e f e n d a n t n e e d n o t h a v e a c o m p r e h e n s i v e a w a r e n e s s o f t h e s p e c i f i c i m p a c t t h a t

r e l i n q u i s h i n g h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s m a y h a v e ; s u f f i c i e n t a w a r e n e s s d o e s n o t r e q u i r e

purposes of r esolving Applicant’s c laim, we will assume without deciding that this is correc t.

This Court is not bound by such a confe ssion of err or. Garza v. State

, 213 S.W .3d 338, 350 7

(Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Saldano v. State , 70 S.W .3d 873, 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)).PAL MBERG — 6

c o m p l e t e k n o w l e d g e o f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s c a s e

. I n U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. R u iz

, 5 3 6 U

. S

. 6 2 2

, 6 2 5

- 2 6

( 2 0 0 2 )

, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t u p h e l d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f a f e d e r a l “ f a s t t r a c k ”

p l e a b a r g a i n p r o c e s s w h e r e b y t h e d e f e n d a n t a g r e e d t o w a i v e h i s d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t t o t h e

p r e t r i a l d i s c l o s u r e o f i m p e a c h m e n t i n f o r m a t i o n

. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t R u i z ’ s

i g n o r a n c e o f p o t e n t i a l i m p e a c h m e n t i n f o r m a t i o n d i d n o t r e n d e r h i s g u i l t y p l e a i n v o l u n t a r y

f o r d u e p r o c e s s p u r p o s e s

. I d

. a t 6 2 9

. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o b s e r v e d t h a t

t h e l a w o r d i n a r i l y c o n s i d e r s a w a i v e r k n o w i n g

, i n t e l l i g e n t

, a n d s u f f i c i e n t l y

a w a r e i f t h e d e f

e n d a n t f u l l y u n d e r s t a n d s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r i g h t a n d h o w i t

w o u l d l i k e l y a p p l y i n g e n e r a l i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

— e v e n t h o u g h t h e

d e f e n d a n t m a y n o t k n o w t h e s p e c i f i c d e t a i l e d

c o n s e q u e n c e s o f

i n v o k i n g i t

. A

d e f e n d a n t

, f o r e x a m p l e

, m a y w a i v e h i s r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t

, h i s r i g h t t o a j u r y

t r i a l

, o r h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l e v e n i f t h e d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t k n o w t h e s p e c i f i c

q u e s t i o n s t h e a u t h o r i t i e s i n t e n d t o a s k

, w h o w i l l l i k e l y s e r v e o n t h e j u r y

, o r t h e

p a r t i c u l a r l a w y e r t h e S t a t e m i g h t o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e

.

I d

. a t 6 2 9

- 3 0

. A g u i l t y p l e a d o e s n o t v i o l a t e d u e p r o c e s s

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o b s e r v e d

, e v e n

w h e n t h e d e f

e n d a n t e n t e r s i t w h i l e o p e r a t i n g u n d e r v a r i o u s m i s a p p r e h e n s i o n s a b o u t t h e

n a t u r e o r s t r e n g t h o f t h e S t a t e ’ s c a s e a g a i n s t h i m

— f o r e x a m p l e

, m i s e s t i m a t i n g t h e l i k e l y

p e n a l t y

, f

a i l i n g t o a n t i c i p a t e a c h a n g e i n l a w r e s p e c t i n g p u n i s h m e n t

, m i s c a l c u l a t i n g t h e

a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f a c o n f

e s s i o n

, o r m i s

j u d g i n g t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a p o t e n t i a l d e f e n s e

. I d

. a t 6 3 0

-

3 1

.

T h e c a s e s R u iz c i t e s a m p l y s u p p o r t t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n

. F o r e x a m p l e

, i n B r a d y v

. U n i t e d

S t a t e s

, 3 9 7 U

. S

. 7 4 2

, 7 5 7 ( 1 9 7 0 )

, t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s a t t o r n e y g a v e r e a s o n a b l e a d v i c e

, “ i n l i g h t

o f t h e t h e n a p p l i c a b l e l a w [

, ] ” t h a t t h e j u r y w o u l d b e a b l e t o s e n t e n c e h i m t o d e a t h u n d e r t h e

p e r t i n e n t s t a t u t e

. T h i s a d v i c e t u r n e d o u t t o b e i n c o r r e c t b a s e d o n a s u b s e q u e n t S u p r e m e C o u r tPAL MBERG — 7

d e c i s i o n i n U

n i t e d S t a t e s v

. J

a c k s o n

, 3 9 0 U

. S

. 5 7 0 ( 1 9 6 8 )

. B r a d y v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

, 3 9 7 U

. S

.

a t 7 5 6

. T h e d e f

e n d a n t i n B r a d

y v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s a r g u e d t h a t

, b e c a u s e h i s p l e a w a s g i v e n i n

i g n o r a n c e o f t h e s u b s e q u e n t d e c i s i o n i n J a c k s o n

, i t w a s i n v o l u n t a r y

. 3 9 7 U

. S

. a t 7 5 6

. T h e

S u p r e m e C o u r t d i s a g r e e d

, f i n d i n g t h e r e t o b e “ n o r e q u i r e m e n t i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n t h a t a

d e f e n d a n t m u s t b e p e r m i t t e d t o d i s o w n h i s s o l e m n a d m i s s i o n s i n o p e n c o u r t t h a t h e

c o m m i t t e d t h e a c t w i t h w h i c h h e i s c h a r g e d s i m p l y b e c a u s e i t l a t e r d e v e l o p s t h a t t h e S t a t e

w o u l d h a v e h a d a w e a k e r c a s e t h a n t h e d e f e n d a n t t h o u g h t o r t h a t t h e m a x i m u m p e n a l t y t h e n

a s s u m e d a p p l i c a b l e h a s b e e n h e l d i n a p p l i c a b l e i n s u b s e q u e n t j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s

. ” I d

. a t 7 5 7

.

M c M a n n v

. R i c h a r d

s o n i s a c a s e c i t e d i n R u iz w i t h f a c t s e v e n m o r e a n a l o g o u s t o

A p p l i c a n t ’ s c i r c u m s t a n c e s

. T h e r e t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t a d d r e s s e d a d e f e n d a n t ’ s c l a i m t h a t “ a

c o e r c e d c o n f

e s s i o n i n d u c e d h i s p l e a [

. ] ” T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e g a r d e d i t

, h o w e v e r

, a s “ a t m o s t

a c l a i m t h a t t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f h i s c o n f e s s i o n w a s m i s t a k e n l y a s s e s s e d a n d t h a t

. . . h i s p l e a

w a s [ t h e r e f

o r e ] a n u n i n t e l l i g e n t a n d v o i d a b l e a c t

. ” 3 9 7 U

. S

. 7 5 9

, 7 6 9 ( 1 9 7 0 )

. T h e S u p r e m e

C o u r t o b s e r v e d t h a t “ [ t ] h e C o n s t i t u t i o n

. . . d o e s n o t r e n d e r p l e a s o f g u i l t y s o v u l n e r a b l e

. ” I d

.

T h e C o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t w h e n a “ d e f e n d a n t w a i v e s h i s s t a t e c o u r t r e m e d i e s a n d a d m i t s h i s

g u i l t

, h e d o e s s o u n d e r t h e l a w t h e n e x i s t i n g ; f u r t h e r

, h e a s s u m e s t h e r i s k [ o f ] o r d i n a r

y e r r o r

i n e i t h e r h i s o r h i s a t t o r n e y ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o

f t h e l a w a n d f

a c t s

. ” I d

. a t 7 7 4 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. 8

That is not to say that, if a defe ndant’s counsel misinforms him with reg ard to some critica l 8

fac t, he may not raise a separ ate Six th Amendment challeng e to t h e ad eq u ac y of counsel’s

repr esenta tion during the plea barg aining proce ss. See, e.g.

, Lafler v. Cooper

, 132 S.Ct

. 1376, 1384

(2012) (“D efe ndants have a Six th Amendment rig ht to counsel, a rig h t that extends to the pleabarg aining proce ss.”).PAL MBERG — 8

I t i s i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e s e h o l d i n g s t h a t w e m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r A p p l i c a n t ’ s p l e a

o f g u i l t y w a s i n t e l l i g e n t l y a n d v o l u n t a r i l y m a d e

. I s a p l e a i n v o l u n t a r y b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t

p l e d g u i l t y u n d e r t h e m i s t a k e n b e l i e f t h a t s p e c i f i c e v i d e n c e w o u l d b e a v a i l a b l e f o r u s e a g a i n s t

h i m a t t r i a l ? W e b e l i e v e s u c h a p l e a i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l u n t a r y

.

A P P L I C A T I O N O F L A W T O F A C T S

A p p l i c a n t c l a i m s “ n o r a t i o n a l d e f e n d a n t

, p o s i t i v e l y k n o w i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e c a n n o t

p r o v e e v e r y e l e m e n t i n a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n

, w o u l d p l e a d g u i l t y t o a n o f f e n s e

. ” A p p l i c a n t ’ s

B r i e f a t 9

. H e a r g u e s t h a t h i s p l e a w a s i n v o l u n t a r y b e c a u s e h e w o u l d n o t h a v e p l e d g u i l t y t o

t h e o f f e n s e h a d h e k n o w n t h a t t h e r e w a s n o t e n o u g h s u b s t a n c e l e f t t o t e s t

. B u t

, e v e n

a c c e p t i n g t h e v e r a c i t y o f A p p l i c a n t ’ s a s s e r t i o n

, t h i s d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y e s t a b l i s h t h a t h i s

p l e a w a s i n v o l u n t a r y

. S e e B r a d y v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

, 3 9 7 U

. S

. a t 7 4 9

– 5 0 ( m e r e l y s h o w i n g t h a t

t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s m i s c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e p e n a l t y p r o v i s i o n w a s a “ b u t f o r ” m o t i v a t i o n f

o r t h e

p l e a o f g u i l t y d i d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e p l e a w a s a n i n v o l u n t a r y a c t )

.

A s t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s c a s e s d e s c r i b e d a b o v e m a k e c l e a r

, t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f a

d e f e n d a n t ’ s g u i l t y p l e a i s n o t c o n t i n g e n t u p o n h i s a w a r e n e s s o f t h e f u l l d i m e n s i o n o f t h e

p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s c a s e

. W h i l e a n y d e f e n d a n t w h o i s d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r o r n o t t o p l e a d g u i l t y

w o u l d c e r t a i n l y p r e f

e r t o b e a p p r i s e d o f h i s e x a c t o d d s o f a n a c q u i t t a l a t t r i a l

, t h e r e a l i t y i s

t h a t e v e r y d e f

e n d a n t w h o e n t e r s a g u i l t y p l e a d o e s s o w i t h a p r o v e r b i a l r o l l o f t h e d i c e

.

N a t u r a l l y

, t h e m o r e i n f

o r m a t i o n t h e d e f

e n d a n t a c q u i r e s b e f

o r e h a n d a b o u t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s

c a s e

, t h e b e t t e r i n f

o r m e d h i s d e c i s i o n t o p l e a d g u i l t y w i l l b e

, p r o v i d i n g h i m t h e o p p o r t u n i t yPAL MBERG — 9

t o m a k e a “ w i s e ” p l e a

. R u iz

, 5 3 6 U

. S

. a t 6 2 9

. B u t e v e n i f t h e d e f e n d a n t i s l e s s w e l l

- i n f

o r m e d

,

a s l o n g a s h e h a s a s u f

f i c i e n t a w a r e n e s s o f

h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e s

— i n c l u d i n g a n a w a r e n e s s t h a t

s o m e f a c t s s i m p l y r e m a i n u n k n o w n t o h i m o r a r e u n d e t e r m i n e d a s o f t h e t i m e o f t h e

p l e a

— h i s p o t e n t i a l l y u n w i s e p l e a i s s t i l l a v o l u n t a r y o n e

.

T h e r e c o u l d b e a n y n u m b e r o f s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h e v i d e n c e t h e d e f e n d a n t i n i t i a l l y

t h o u g h t a d m i s s i b l e i s a c t u a l l y i n a d m i s s i b l e

, a w i t n e s s t h o u g h t t o b e a v a i l a b l e i s a c t u a l l y

u n a v a i l a b l e

, o r

, a s i n t h i s c a s e

, e v i d e n c e t h o u g h t t o b e s u b j e c t t o f o r e n s i c t e s t i n g i s

, i n f

a c t

,

n o t t e s t a b l e

. T h e c o r r e c t q u e s t i o n f o r d u e p r o c e s s p u r p o s e s i s n o t w h e t h e r A p p l i c a n t k n e w

e v e r y f a c t r e l e v a n t t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f h i s c a s e

. R a t h e r

, t h e c o r r e c t q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r h e

w a s a w a r e o f s u f

f i c i e n t f a c t s

— i n c l u d i n g a n a w a r e n e s s t h a t t h e r e a r e o r m a y b e f a c t s t h a t h e

d o e s n o t y e t k n o w

— t o m a k e a n i n f o r m e d a n d v o l u n t a r y p l e a

. 9

A s t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t f u r t h e r o b s e r v e d i n R u iz

, p r a c t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a l s o w a r r a n t

s u c h a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f “ v o l u n t a r i n e s s ” f o r g u i l t y p l e a p u r p o s e s

. T h e i s s u e o f w h a t p r o c e s s

i s d u e i n t h e p l e a b a r g a i n c o n t e x t

, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t

, m u s t a l s o t a k e i n t o

a c c o u n t “ t h e a d v e r s e i m p a c t o f t h e [ p r o p o s e d ] r e q u i r e m e n t u p o n t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s i n t e r e s t s

. ”

R u i z

, 5 3 6 U

. S

. a t 6 3 1 ( c i t i n g A k e v

. O k l a h o m a

, 4 7 0 U

. S

. 6 8

, 7 7 ( 1 9 8 5 ) )

. T h e r e f o r e

, w e m u s t

I mag ine the following hy

pothetical: The prosec ution is discussing a potential plea barg ain 9

with a defe ndant. The prosec ution has a star witness that will all but ensure a convicti o n fo r t he

State. The prosec utor, truthfully

, tells the defe ndant about this star witness in the hope of inducing

the defendant to plead guilty

. Un b ek n o wn s t to either party

, rig ht befor e the defe ndant accepts the

plea barg ain, the star witness dies in a n automobile acc ident. The defe ndant then, not know ing the

prosec ution’s case is signific antly d i m i nished, acc epts the plea barg ain. This plea should not be

considere d “involuntary .” Every defe ndant that pleads g uilty does so with the implicit understanding

that conviction at trial is neve r ce rtain. The sa me under standing applies to Applicant in this case

.PAL MBERG — 10

c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e r u l e t h a t A p p l i c a n t w o u l d h a v e u s a d o p t m i g h t “ s e r i o u s l y i n t e r f e r e w i t h

t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s i n t e r e s t i n s e c u r i n g t h o s e g u i l t y p l e a s t h a t a r e f a c t u a l l y j u s t i f

i e d

, d e s i r e d

b y d e f e n d a n t s

, a n d h e l p t o s e c u r e t h e e f f i c i e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e ” b y r e q u i r i n g t h e

G o v e r n m e n t t o “ d e v o t e s u b s t a n t i a l l y m o r e r e s o u r c e s t o t r i a l p r e p a r a t i o n p r i o r t o p l e a

b a r g a i n i n g

, t h e r e b y d e p r i v i n g t h e p l e a

- b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s o f i t s m a i n r e s o u r c e

- s a v i n g

a d v a n t a g e s

. ” I

d

. a t 6 3 1

- 3 2

. T a k i n g A p p l i c a n t ’ s a r g u m e n t t o i t s l o g i c a l e x t r e m e w o u l d r e q u i r e

m a n d a t o r y l a b o r a t o r y t e s t i n g f o r a l l d r u g p o s s e s s i o n c a s e s

, w h e t h e r t h o s e c a s e s u l t i m a t e l y

p r o c e e d e d t o t r i a l o r n o t

— q u i t e p o s s i b l y a n e v e n g r e a t e r h a r d s h i p t h a n t h e d i s c l o s u r e o f

i m p e a c h m e n t i n f

o r m a t i o n t h a t w a s a t i s s u e i n R u iz

. S i m p l y p u t

, a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a

d e f e n d a n t b e c o m p l e t e l y i n f o r m e d a b o u t e v e r y f

a c t r e l e v a n t t o h i s p r o s e c u t i o n a t t h e t i m e o f

h i s p l e a ( e v e n f

a c t s t h a t n o o n e d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e p l e a p r o c e s s

— i n c l u d i n g t h e

p r o s e c u t o r

— c o u l d p o s s i b l y y e t k n o w ) w o u l d i m p o s e a n u n t e n a b l e a n d u n d e s i r a b l e b u r d e n

o n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f p l e a b a r g a i n i n g

.

F o r t h a t m a t t e r

, s u c h a r e q u i r e m e n t w o u l d o f t e n w o r k t o t h e d e t r i m e n t o f d e f e n d a n t s

t h e m s e l v e s

, w h o f

r e q u e n t l y b e n e f

i t f r o m p l e a a g r e e m e n t s t h a t o c c u r e a r l y i n t h e p l e a

n e g o t i a t i o n p r o c e s s

. W e r e w e t o a d o p t A p p l i c a n t ’ s p r o p o s e d r u l e

, t h e S t a t e w o u l d l i k e l y b e

r e l u c t a n t t o t e n d e r a n y f a v o r a b l e “ f

a s t t r a c k ” p l e a b a r g a i n a g r e e m e n t s f o r f e a r t h a t t h o s e

a g r e e m e n t s w o u l d b e v u l n e r a b l e t o “ v o l u n t a r i n e s s ” c h a l l e n g e s o n a p p e a l o r c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k

.

I n d e e d

, i t c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y d e p r i v e b o t h p a r t i e s o f t h e b e n e f i t s o f s o

- c a l l e d “ f

a s t

- t r a c k ” p l e a

b a r g a i n s a l t o g e t h e r

. S e e R u iz

, 5 3 6 U

. S

. a t 6 2 5

. D u e p r o c e s s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s m a n d a t e n e i t h e rPAL MBERG — 11

a c o m p r e h e n s i v e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e S t a t e ’ s c a s e f o r t r i a l n o r a c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e p r e

- t r i a l

d i s c o v e r y p r o c e s s b e f

o r e e i t h e r p a r t y c a n e n

j o y t h e b e n e f

i t s o f a m u t u a l l y b e n e f

i c i a l p l e a

b a r g a i n a g r e e m e n t

. 1 0

A l l o f t h i s i s n o t t o s a y t h a t w e w o u l d n e v e r g r a n t a n u n i n f o r m e d A p p l i c a n t r e l i e f

. I f

a n a p p l i c a n t w a s a f

f i r m a t i v e l y l e d t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e c o u l d d e f i n i t i v e l y b e t e s t e d

d u e t o m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s b y t h e S t a t e

, o r p e r h a p s b e c a u s e o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f 1 1

c o u n s e l

, t h e n h i s p l e a m i g h t b e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y c h a l l e n g e a b l e

. B u t n e i t h e r t h e r e c o r d n o r

1 2

A p p l i c a n t ’ s b r i e f s u g g e s t s a n y p r o s e c u t o r i a l m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o r i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f d e f

e n s e

c o u n s e l

. P e r h a p s A p p l i c a n t k n e w t h a t l a w e n f o r c e m e n t p o s s e s s e d t h e s u b s t a n c e f o u n d o n h i s

I ndeed, a defe ndant could rec eive a very favor able sentence beca use, befor e all the 1 0

evidenc e is available

, he rolls the dice and acc epts a favor able plea barg ain that the State offe rs—the

very kind of “fast trac k” plea barg ain t hat was involved in Ruiz . 536 U.S. at 625. I f a drug sample

in a prosec ution f

or drug possession te sts positive for a controlled substance, it is entirely possible

that a defenda

nt could be convicted at trial and rece ive a less favor able sentence than he would in

an expedited ple a barg ain. But if the State will be forc ed to test the sample as a prer equisite of that

plea barg ain, it might not be so willing to cut a favor able deal, knowing that it will have been put to

the trouble of g ather ing all the evidenc e neede d for a conviction. I n the ear ly stag es of prosec ution,

befor e all evidenc e has come to light, a defe ndant may be able to barg ain for a better deal than would

be available afte r the acc umulation of more evidenc e. Essentially

, a defe ndant can benef it from these

situations in which the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e at trial is still specula tive. He should not be able

to backtr ack afte r his conviction simply beca use it later comes to light that, had he taken his case to

trial, the evidenc e might have been insufficient to convince a fac t-finder that he was g uilty bey ond

a re asonable doubt.

See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 755 (“[A] plea of g uilty enter ed by one fully awa re 1 1

of the direc t conseque nces, including the actua l value of any commitments made to him by the court,

prosec utor, or hi s own counsel, must s tand unless induced by threa ts

. . . misrepresentation

. . . or

perha ps by promises that are by their nature improper as having no proper relat i o n s h i p to the

p r o secutor’ s business.”) (citing Shelton v. United States

, 246 F.2d 571, 572 n. 2 (C.A. 5th Cir. 1957))

(empha sis added).

See note 8, ante

. 1 2PAL MBERG — 12

p e r s o n a t t h e t i m e o f a r r e s t

, b u t h e d i d n o t k n o w w h e t h e r o r n o t i t h a d b e e n t e s t e d

, o r e v e n

w h e t h e r o r n o t i t c o u l d h a v e b e e n t e s t e d

. S o l o n g a s A p p l i c a n t w a s a w a r e t h a t t h i s w a s s t i l l

a n u n k n o w n v a r i a b l e i n h i s p r o s e c u t i o n

— s o l o n g a s h e k n e w w h a t h e d i d n o t k n o w

— t h e n

h e w a s s u f

f i c i e n t l y a w a r e o f t h e r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g h i s c a s e

. T h e f a c t t h a t

h i s r o l l o f

t h e d i c e d i d n o t t u r n o u t a s f a v o r a b l y a s i t m i g h t h a v e h a d h e p r o c e e d e d t o t r i a l i s

n o t a g r o u n d f

o r i n v a l i d a t i n g h i s p l e a

. 1 3

F i n a l l y

, t h i s c a s e i s f

a c t u a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m M a b l e

, 4 4 3 S

. W

. 3 d 1 2 9 ( T e x

. C r i m

.

A p p

. 2 0 1 4 )

, u p o n w h i c h A p p l i c a n t p r i n c i p a l l y r e l i e s

. T h e r e

, t h e C o u r t e x p l a i n e d :

i t [ a g u i l t y p l e a ] c a n n o t b e t r u l y v o l u n t a r y u n l e s s t h e d e f e n d a n t p o s s e s s e s a n

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e l a w i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e f a c t s

. T h i s m e a n s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t

m u s t h a v e s u f

f i c i e n t a w a r e n e s s o f t h e r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s

. T h e s t a n d a r d i s

w h e t h e r t h e p l e a i s a v o l u n t a r y a n d i n t e l l i g e n t c h o i c e a m o n g t h e a l t e r n a t i v e

c o u r s e s o f a c t i o n o p e n t o t h e d e f e n d a n t

.

I d

. a t 1 3 1 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s

, f o o t n o t e s

, a n d c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

. T h e a p p e l l a n t i n M a b l e

p l e d g u i l t y t o p o s s e s s i o n o f a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e

, b u t f o r e n s i c t e s t i n g c o n d u c t e d a f t e r t h e

g u i l t y p l e a d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e “ d i d n o t a c t u a l l y c o n t a i n a n y i l l i c i t m a t e r i a l s

. ”

I ndeed, his roll of the di ce co u l d very well have turned out favor ably ! Applicant was 1 3

char g ed with a state jail felony

, T E X

. H E A L T H A N D S A F E T Y C O D E § 481.115 (b), which car ri es a

sentenc e of c onfinement in state jail for not less than 180 day s. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 12.35(a) . But

Applicant still rec eived only 90 day s’ confine ment as a result of his plea. Th i s re d u ct i o n in

punishment is one of the signific ant fea tures of the plea- barg ain sy stem. A defe ndant takes a lesser

sentenc e without putting the State to the burden of a trial, and the State saves resour ces and protec ts

its i n t er es t i n an efficient and administratively fea sible justice sy stem. Allowing such a defenda nt

to undo his plea b ec au s e t he State’s evidenc e turned out to be insufficient would be simil ar to a

poker play er wanting to undo his fold upon rea liz ing that his opponent did not have a winning hand.

A defe ndant cannot claim involuntariness just beca use he wrong ly g uessed what was in the State’s

“hand” for tria l.PAL MBERG — 13

I d

. a t 1 3 0

. “ T h i s f

a c t i s c r u c i a l t o t h i s c a s e

, ” w e e x p l a i n e d

, b e c a u s e “ o p e r a t i n g u n d e r s u c h

a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g

, t h e a p p l i c a n t c a n n o t b e s a i d t o h a v e e n t e r e d h i s p l e a k n o w i n g l y a n d

i n t e l l i g e n t l y

. ” I

d

. a t 1 3 1

.

A p p l i c a n t h a s p r e s e n t e d n o e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e f a c t s o f h i s c a s e w e r e n o t

e x a c t l y w h a t a l l t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e c a s e b e l i e v e d t h e m t o b e a t t h e t i m e h e e n t e r e d

h i s p l e a

. H e d o e s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t h e w a s u n d e r a n y m i s a p p r e h e n s i o n a b o u t t h e t r u e

n a t u r e o f t h e s u b s t a n c e h e p o s s e s s e d o r t h a t h e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t l y a w a r e o f a n y f

a c t t h a t w a s

“ c r u c i a l t o t h i s c a s e [

. ] ” I d

. a t 1 3 1

. H e d e m o n s t r a t e s o n l y t h a t h e w a s u n a w a r e o f t h e

u n a v a i l a b i l i t y o f c e r t a i n f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e t h a t m i g h t o r m i g h t n o t h a v e s u b s t a n t i a t e d h i s

j u d i c i a l c o n f

e s s i o n

. A d e f

e n d a n t s u c h a s M a b l e

, w h o h a s p l e d g u i l t y b e c a u s e h e b e l i e v e d h e

h a d c o m m i t t e d a s p e c i f i c o f f e n s e

, w h e n o b

j e c t i v e a n d e s s e n t i a l l y i r r e f u t a b l e f a c t s

d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t h e d i d n o t c o m m i t t h a t o f f e n s e

, h a s n o t m a d e a n i n f o r m e d c h o i c e

. H e r e

, b y

c o n t r a s t

, t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t A p p l i c a n t m i s t a k e n l y b e l i e v e d h e w a s g u i l t y ;

i t s h o w s n o m o r e t h a n t h a t h e m a y h a v e o v e r e s t i m a t e d t h e S t a t e ’ s a b i l i t y t o u l t i m a t e l y p r o v e

h e w a s g u i l t y i n t h e a b s e n c e o f h i s j u d i c i a l c o n f e s s i o n

. U n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

,

1 4

I n Alford v. North Carolina

, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), the defe ndant pled g uilty to a lesser 1 4

included offe nse of the capital offe nse with which he had been char g ed even though he protested his

innocenc e during the plea col l o q u y

. T h e Supreme Court reg arde d this as a sufficie ntly intelligent

plea be cause it was made with a n awa rene ss of the compe lling evide nce of g uilt that the St ate ha d

amassed a g ainst him. The Supreme Court obser ved:

When [A l fo rd ’s] plea is viewed in light of the evidenc e ag ainst him, which

substantially neg ated his claim of innocenc e and which further provided a means by

which the judge could test whether the p l ea was being intelligently enter ed, its

validity cannot be seriously

questioned.PAL MBERG — 14

A p p l i c a n t c a n n o t b e s a i d t o h a v e d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t h i s p l e a w a s n o t k n o w i n g l y a n d

i n t e l l i g e n t l y e n t e r e d

.

A P P L I C A N T ’ S A N A L O G I E S

A p p l i c a n t a t t e m p t s t o a n a l o g i z e h i s p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n t o o t h e r s c e n a r i o s i n w h i c h w e

h a v e h e l d t h a t a p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n h a b e a s a p p l i c a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f

. S u c h s c e n a r i o s i n c l u d e

w h e n t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t s f a l s e e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l

, w h e n t h e S t a t e f a i l s t o d i s c l o s e e x c u l p a t o r y

e v i d e n c e b e f

o r e t r i a l

, a n d w h e n a d e f e n d a n t d i s c o v e r s p r e v i o u s l y u n o b t a i n a b l e e v i d e n c e

c o m p l e t e l y e x o n e r a t i n g h i m o f t h e c h a r g e d c r i m e

. A l t h o u g h t h e c o m m o n e l e m e n t a m o n g

t h e s e g r o u n d s f

o r r e l i e f i s d u e p r o c e s s

, t h e d u e p r o c e s s c o n c e r n s t h a t u n d e r g i r d s u c h g r o u n d s

Id . at 37-38 (c itation omitted). I ndeed, T exas law requir es the introduction of “ sufficie nt evidence

to support” a g uilty

plea. T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 1.15. I n a ca se such a s Mable’s, whe re la ter

evidenc e utterly undermines the pleade r’s judicial confe ssion, there is nothing substantial to support

the g uilty plea, and it cannot be said that it was enter ed intelligently

. Her e, by contra st, there was no

evidenc e to undermine Applicant’s judicial confe ssion, which was alone sufficie nt to support his

g uilty plea. Mene

fee v. State

, 287 S.W .3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Whil e the evidenc e ag ainst

him o t h er t h a n h i s judicial confe ssion may not have been compelling, as in Alford

, in light of the

State’s ultimate inability to verify the results of the field test, it cannot be said that Applicant’s

judicial confe ssion was demonstrably false or that he made that confe ssion i n t h e ab s ence of

definitive proof

that it was inacc urate . I t bear s repe ating that

[t ]he rule that a plea must be intelligentl y made to be valid does not require that a

plea be vulnera

ble to later attack if the defe ndant did not corr ectly assess ever y

rele vant fac tor enter ing into his decision. A defe ndant is not entitled to withdraw his

plea mere ly beca

use he discovers long afte r the p l ea h as been acc epted that his

calc ulus misapprehe nded the quality of the State’s case [.] * * * We find no

require ment in the Constit ution that a defe ndant m u s t be permitted to disown his

solemn admissions in open court that he committed the act with which he is char g ed

simply beca

use it later develops that the State would have had a wea ker case than the

defe ndant had thoug ht[ .]

Brady v. U

nited States , 397 U.S. at 757.PAL MBERG — 15

f o r r e l i e f a r e d i f

f e r e n t

. I t i s t h e r e f

o r e i m p o r t a n t t o i d e n t i f

y t h e d u e p r o c e s s c o n c e r n s t h a t w e

c o n s i d e r w h e n g r a n t i n g r e l i e f o n t h e s e g r o u n d s b e f o r e d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r A p p l i c a n t ’ s

a n a l o g i e s a r e a p t

. F i n a l l y

, A p p l i c a n t a l s o a n a l o g i z e s h i s c a s e t o S i x t h A m e n d m e n t c l a i m s o f

i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l d u r i n g t h e p l e a

- n e g o t i a t i o n s t a g e o f a p r o s e c u t i o n

. A f t e r

r e v i e w i n g A p p l i c a n t ’ s a r g u m e n t s i n t u r n

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s e t o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s

d o e s n o t f

i t a n y s c e n a r i o i n w h i c h t h i s C o u r t t y p i c a l l y g r a n t s r e l i e f

.

1

. U s e o f F a l s e E v i d e n c e

F i r s t

, A p p l i c a n t r e l i e s o n c a s e s i n w h i c h w e h a v e g r a n t e d r e l i e f b e c a u s e t h e

p r o s e c u t i o n s e c u r e d a c o n v i c t i o n t h r o u g h t h e d e l i b e r a t e o r e v e n i n a d v e r t e n t u s e o f f a l s e

e v i d e n c e

. E

x p a r t e C a r m o n a

, 1 8 5 S

. W

. 3 d 4 9 2 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 0 6 ) ; E x p a r t e C h a b o t

,

3 0 0 S

. W

. 3 d 7 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 )

. B u t t h e s e c a s e s d o n o t s t a n d f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a d e f e n d a n t ’ s

p l e a i s i n v o l u n t a r y s i m p l y b e c a u s e h e i s u n a w a r e o f a m a t e r i a l f a c t

. R a t h e r

, t h e r a t i o n a l e

b e h i n d t h e s e c a s e s i s t h a t t h e u s e o f p e r j u r e d o r f

a l s e t e s t i m o n y w i l l r e n d e r a c o n v i c t i o n

i n v a l i d b e c a u s e i t d r a s t i c a l l y c o m p r o m i s e s t h e f a i r n e s s o f t h e t r i a l

. B e c a u s e t h e t r i a l i s t h e

m a i n e v e n t o f o u r c r i m i n a l j u d i c i a l s y s t e m

, d u e p r o c e s s p u t s a p r e m i u m o n t h e f a i r n e s s o f t h e

p r o c e e d i n g b y w h i c h a f a c t f i n d e r a s s e s s e s g u i l t o r i n n o c e n c e

.

I n t h e p l e a b a r g a i n c o n t e x t

, d u e p r o c e s s f o c u s e s n o t o n t h e f

a i r n e s s o f t r i a l b u t o n t h e

i n t e g r i t y o f t h e p r o c e s s b y w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t i s p e r s u a d e d t o f

o r e g o t r i a l

. H a s h e k n o w i n g l y

a n d v o l u n t a r i l

y w a i v e d b o t h h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o t r i a l a n d t h e m a n y a t t e n d a n t

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s t h a t a r e t h e m s e l v e s d e s i g n e d t o m a x i m i z e t h e f a i r n e s s o f t r i a l ?PAL MBERG — 16

M c C a r t h y

, 3 9 4 U

. S

. a t 4 6 6

. A d m i t t e d l y

, w h e t h e r t h e p l e a w a s v o l u n t a r y a n d w h e t h e r t h e 1 5

p l e a

- b a r g a i n p r o c e s s w a s f a i r c a n i n v o l v e o v e r l a p p i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

. C e r t a i n l y

, t h e S t a t e

g o i n g s o f

a r a s t o m i s r e p r e s e n t i n f o r m a t i o n t o i n d u c e a p l e a w o u l d b e u n f a i r a n d

, u n d e r

B r a d y v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

, i t w o u l d a l s o r e n d e r t h e p l e a i n v o l u n t a r y

. 3 9 7 U

. S

. a t 7 5 5

. B u t w e

h a v e n e v e r h e l d

, u p t o t h i s p o i n t i n t i m e

, t h a t a m e r e l y p o t e n t i a l l y u n f a i r p l e a

— p e r h a p s

, f

o r

e x a m p l e

, i n d u c e d b y t h e S t a t e i n a d v e r t e n t l y r e p r e s e n t i n g f

a l s e i n f o r m a t i o n

— s h o u l d

a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e s u l t s i n a r e v e r s a l

. V o l u n t a r i n e s s a n d f a i r n e s s a r e t w o d i s t i n c t i s s u e s a n d 1 6

m u s t b e t r e a t e d a s s u c h

. H a v i n g a l r e a d y d e c i d e d t h a t A p p l i c a n t ’ s p l e a w a s v o l u n t a r y

, w e l o o k

n e x t t o w h e t h e r a l a c k o f f a i r n e s s a t t h e p r e t r i a l s t a g e o f p r o s e c u t i o n c a n w a r r a n t g r a n t i n g

r e l i e f o n d u e p r o c e s s g r o u n d s

, a n d w h e t h e r A p p l i c a n t w a s e v e n t r e a t e d u n f a i r l y t o b e g i n w i t h

.

I t i s u n c l e a r t o w h a t e x t e n t a d e f e n d a n t

, a t l e a s t s o f

a r a s t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n

i s c o n c e r n e d

, i s a f

f o r d e d p r o t e c t i o n o n t h e b a s i s o f f a i r n e s s i n t h e p r e

- t r i a l p h a s e o f a 1 7

Clearly

, there is still some interest in fairne ss at the plea barg aining stag e. For example, the 1 5

State cannot obtain a

g uilty plea throug h delibera te misrepre sentation. See Brady v. United States,

397 U.S. at 755. The case law explaining how much protec tion is aff orded a defe ndant at the pleabarg aining stag e under this notion of fairne ss, howeve r, is not completely develope d. See Ruiz

, 536

U.S. at 629 (l i m i t ing analy sis to whether impeachme nt materia l must be disclosed during pleabarg aining neg otiations, but not answe ring the question wh et h er all exculpatory materia l must be

disclosed during plea- barg aining neg otiations).

Even if we had held a s much, Applicant make s no showing he re tha t the State made a ny 1 6

repr esenta tion to him at all conce rning the availability of the substance he possessed to be tested or

used ag ainst him at his trial.

Obviously

, states are free, through their own constitutions or st atutes, t o provide gre ater 1 7

protec tion for defe ndants in the pre- trial phase of prosec ution. See Heitman v. State

, 815 S.W .2d

681, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (“The fede ral constitution sets the floor for individual rig hts; state

constitutions establish the ceiling .”) (quoting LeCroy v. Hanlon

, 713 S.W .2d 335, 338 (Tex. 1986)).PAL MBERG — 17

p r o s e c u t i o n

. B u t t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t i n R u iz s u g g e s t e d f a i r n e s s i s l e s s o f a c o n c e r n i n t h e p r e

t r i a l c o n t e x t :

“ W e d o n o t b e l i e v e t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n h e r e r e q u i r e s p r o v i s i o n o f [ i m p e a c h m e n t ]

i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e d e f

e n d a n t p r i o r t o p l e a b a r g a i n i n g

— f o r m o s t ( t h o u g h n o t

a l l ) o f t h e r e a s o n s p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d

. T h a t i s t o s a y

, i n t h e c o n t e x t o f [ t h e ]

a g r e e m e n t

, t h e n e e d f

o r [ i m p e a c h m e n t ] i n f

o r m a t i o n i s m o r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o

t h e f a i r n e s s o f a t r i a l t h a n t o t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f t h e p l e a ; t h e v a l u e i n t e r m s

o f t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s a d d e d a w a r e n e s s o f r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s o r d i n a r i l y

l i m i t e d

. ”

5 3 6 U

. S

. a t 6 3 3

. I n d e e d

, o t h e r c a s e s h a v e s i m i l a r l y d o w n p l a y e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f f a i r n e s s

b a s e d t r a n s p a r e n c y d u r i n g t h e p l e a b a r g a i n p r o c e s s

. S e e W e a t h e r f o r d v

. B u r s e

y

, 4 2 9 U

. S

.

5 4 5

, 5 5 9 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ( “ T h e r e i s n o g e n e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o d i s c o v e r y i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e a n d

B r a d y d i d n o t c r e a t e o n e ; a s t h e C o u r t w r o t e r e c e n t l y

, ‘ t h e D u e P r o c e s s C l a u s e h a s l i t t l e t o

s a y r e g a r d i n g t h e a m o u n t o f d i s c o v e r y w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s m u s t b e a f f o r d e d [

. ] ’ ” ) ( c i t i n g

W a r d i u s v

. O r e g o n

, 4 1 2 U

. S

. 4 7 0

, 4 7 4 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ; s e e a l s o R u iz

, 5 3 6 U

. S

. a t 6 3 0 ( f i n d i n g t h a t

,

a l t h o u g h “ t h e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e d e f

e n d a n t h a s

, t h e m o r e a w a r e h e i s o f t h e l i k e l y

c o n s e q u e n c e s o f a p l e a

, w a i v e r

, o r d e c i s i o n a n d t h e w i s e r t h a t d e c i s i o n w i l l l i k e l y b e [

, t h e ]

C o n s t i t u t i o n [ s t i l l ] d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e p r o s e c u t o r t o s h a r e a l l u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h t h e

d e f e n d a n t [

, ] ” a n d a l s o f

i n d i n g t h a t “ k n o w l e d g e o f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s p o t e n t i a l c a s e [ i s ] a

m a t t e r t h a t t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n d o e s n o t r e q u i r e p r o s e c u t o r s t o d i s c l o s e ” )

.

B u t e v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e s a m e k i n d o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h a t i n f o r m o u r n o t i o n o f t h e

f a i r n e s s t h a t s o c i e t y d e m a n d s a t t r i a l c o u l d a l s o w a r r a n t m o r e p r o t e c t i o n f o r d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e

p l e a

- b a r g a i n i n g s t a g e

, t h e u s e o f f a l s e o r p e r

j u r e d t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l i s c e r t a i n l y q u i t e d i f f e r e n tPAL MBERG — 18

f r o m w h a t o c c u r r e d i n A p p l i c a n t ’ s c a s e

. A p p l i c a n t h a s n o t s h o w n t h a t t h e S t a t e u s e d f a l s e

o r m i s l e a d i n g e v i d e n c e t o i n d u c e h i s p l e a

, k n o w i n g l y o r o t h e r w i s e

. K n o w i n g e x a c t l y a s m u c h

a s t h e S t a t e d i d

— t h a t t h e r e w a s a s u b s t a n c e f o u n d d u r i n g t h e s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o a r r e s t t h a t

m a y o r m a y n o t b e s u b j e c t t o l a t e r t e s t i n g i n a f o r e n s i c l a b o r a t o r y

— A p p l i c a n t w a s

s u f f i c i e n t l y a w a r e o f t h e r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o e n t e r a n i n t e l l i g e n t a n d v o l u n t a r y p l e a o f

g u i l t y

. T h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e l a t e r p r o v e d t o b e u n t e s t a b l e d i d n o t i m p u g n t h e f a i r n e s s o r

i n t e g r i t y o f t h e p r o c e s s b y w h i c h h e c h o s e t o f o r e g o h i s r i g h t t o t r i a l a n d e m b r a c e t h e e v i d e n t

b e n e f i t o f t h e S t a t e ’ s p l e a o f

f e r

.

2

. B r a d

y C l a i m s

A p p l i c a n t a l s o a t t e m p t s t o a n a l o g i z e h i s c a s e t o c a s e s i n w h i c h p r o s e c u t o r s f a i l t o

d i s c l o s e e x c u l p a t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n p r i o r t o a g u i l t y p l e a

, c i t i n g B r a d y v

. M a r y l a n d

, 3 7 3 U

. S

.

8 3

, 8 7 ( 1 9 6 3 )

. B r a d

y v

. Ma r y l a n d i s y e t a n o t h e r c a s e i n w h i c h t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e l d

t h a t d u e p r o c e s s c a n n o t t o l e r a t e a n u n f a i r p r o c e e d i n g

— n a m e l y

, a t r i a l i n w h i c h t h e

p r o s e c u t i o n k n o w s o f a n d f a i l s t o d i s c l o s e e x c u l p a t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n

. I

d

. a t 8 6

- 8 7

. W h e t h e r t h e

r i g h t t o B r a d

y i n f o r m a t i o n e x t e n d s t o t h e p r e t r i a l s t a g e o f p r o s e c u t i o n

, h o w e v e r

, i s s t i l l a n

o p e n q u e s t i o n

. 1 8

I t is u n cl ear whether or not Brady v. Maryland g oes so far as to rende r g uilty pleas 1 8

involuntary if the prosec ution does not disclose ex culpatory information at the time of the plea,

espec ially afte r the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Ruiz

. Whil e the lang uag e of Brady

v. Mary land might indicate that it doe s, a fur ther a naly sis might lead to the c onclusion that it does

not. See Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. at 86-87 (“This ruling is an extension of Mooney v. Holohan

, 294 U.S. 103, 112 [(1935)], wher e the Court rule d on what nondisclosure by a prosec utor violates

due proce ss[ .] * * * The principle of Mooney v. Holohan is not punishment of society for misdeeds

of a prosec utor but avoidanc e of an unfair trial to the acc used. Society wins not only when the g uiltyPAL MBERG — 19

B u t e v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l m a n d a t e t o d i s c l o s e e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e

t o d e f e n d a n t s u n d e r B r a d

y v

. Ma r y l a n d e x t e n d s t o t h e p l e a b a r g a i n i n g s t a g e o f a p r o s e c u t i o n

,

i t c e r t a i n l y c a n n o t a p p l y w h e r e t h e r e i s n o e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e t o d i s c l o s e

. I t i s u n d i s p u t e d

t h a t t h e S t a t e d i d n o t k n o w t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e f o u n d o n A p p l i c a n t c o u l d n o t b e t e s t e d i n a n

a c c r e d i t e d l a b o r a t o r y

. T h e r e f o r e

, w e f i n d n o o c c a s i o n t o r e a c h t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r B r a d y

m a t e r i a l m u s t b e d i s c l o s e d b e f o r e a p l e a b a r g a i n i s m a d e

. A p p l i c a n t s i m p l y f a i l s t o s h o w t h a t

h e s h o u l d b e g r a n t e d r e l i e f u n d e r t h e s a m e r a t i o n a l e t h a t r e q u i r e s d i s c l o s u r e f o r p u r p o s e s o f

t r i a l u n d e r B r a d

y v

. Ma r y l a n d

.

3

. A c t u a l I n n o c e n c e

A p p l i c a n t a l s o a t t e m p t s t o d r a w a n a n a l o g y b e t w e e n h i s c l a i m a n d a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e

are convicted but when criminal trials are fair [.] ”) (empha sis added)

. See also Robertson v. Lucas,

753 F.3d 606, 621 (6th Cir. 2014) (“We have not y et had occa sion to deter mine whether Ruiz applies

to exculpatory Brady materia l, a quest i o n t h at has cause d some disag ree ment among our sister

circ uits. Compare United States v. Ohiri

, 133 Fe d.Appx. 555, 562 (10th Cir. 2005). (‘[T]he Supreme

Court did not imply that the g overnme nt m ay av o id the conseque nce of a Brady violation if the

defe ndant acc epts an eleve nth-hour plea ag ree ment while ignor ant of withheld exculpatory evidenc e

in the g overnme nt’s possession.’) and McCann v. Mangialardi

, 337 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir. 2003)

( ‘ R u iz in d ic a

te s a s ig n if ic a n t d is ti n c ti o n b e tween impeachme nt information and exculpatory ev id e n c e

of actua l innocenc e.’)

, with Friedman v. Rehal

, 618 F.3d 142, 154 (2d Cir. 2010) (‘[T]he Supreme

C ourt has consistently trea ted exculpatory and impeachme nt evidenc e in the same way for the

purpose of defining the obl igation of a prosec utor to provide Brady materia l prior to trial, and the

rea soning underlying Ruiz co u l d support a simil ar ruling for a prosec utor’s obliga tions prior to a

g uilty plea.’ ) (inter

nal citations omitted) and United States v. Conroy, 567 F.3d 174, 179 ( 5th Cir.

2009) (‘ Ruiz never makes such a d i s t i n ction nor can this proposition be implied from its

discussion.’).”)

. See also Ruiz

, 536 U.S. at 633-634 (Thomas, J

., concur ring ) (“The [S upreme ] Court

. . . sug g ests that the constitutional analy sis [of withholding evidenc e] turns in some part on the

‘deg ree of help’ such information would provide to the defe ndant at the plea stag e

. . . a distinction

that is neither nece ssary nor acc urate

. . . The principle supporting Brady was ‘avoida nce of an unfair

trial to the acc used.’” ); id. at 631 (Majority Opinion) (“I t is difficult to di stinguish, in terms of

importance

, (1) a defe ndant’s ignor ance of g rounds for impeachme nt o f potential witnesses at a

possible future tria l from (2) va ry ing f orms of ig noranc e at issue in these case s.”).PAL MBERG — 20

c l a i m s

, r e l y i n g o n E

x p a r t e T

u l e y

, 1 0 9 S

. W

. 3 d 3 8 8 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 0 2 )

, a n d E x p a r t e

E l iz o n d o

, 9 4 7 S

. W

. 2 d 2 0 2 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 6 )

. U n l i k e a B r a d y c l a i m o r a c l a i m t h a t t h e

S t a t e k n o w i n g l y o r i n a d v e r t e n t l y u s e d f a l s e e v i d e n c e t o o b t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n

, a c l a i m o f a c t u a l

i n n o c e n c e d o e s n o t i m p l i c a t e t h e f a i r n e s s o f t h e t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g

. R a t h e r

, i t i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h

t h e a c c u r a c

y o f t h e r e s u l t

. O f c o u r s e

, a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e c l a i m s c a n b e u s e d t o c h a l l e n g e e v e n 1 9

a c o n v i c t i o n o b t a i n e d b y a g u i l t y p l e a

. T u l e y

, 1 0 9 S

. W

. 3 d a t 3 9 2

. W h a t p l a c e s t h e o u t c o m e

o f s u c h a p r o s e c u t i o n i n d o u b t

, h o w e v e r

, i s t h e d i s c o v e r y o f n e w e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e i n

l i g h t o f w h i c h i t m a y b e s a i d

, b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e

, t h a t n o r e a s o n a b l e j u r y

w o u l d h a v e c o n v i c t e d h i m

. E l i z o n d o

, 9 4 7 S

. W

. 2 d a t 2 0 9

. A p p l i c a n t h a s s h o w n n o s u c h

d i s c o v e r y i n t h i s c a s e

. A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h o s e a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e c a s e s w i t h A p p l i c a n t ’ s c a s e

r e v e a l s t h a t t h e y d o n o t c o n t r o l h e r e

.

I n E l iz o n d o

, t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d a f t e r a t r i a l a t w h i c h t h e S t a t e r e l i e d s o l e l y

u p o n t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s s t e p

- s o n R o b e r t

, a n a l l e g e d v i c t i m i n t h e c a s e a l o n g

w i t h h i s y o u n g e r b r o t h e r

. 9 4 7 S

. W

. 2 d a t 2 0 9

. T h i r t e e n y e a r s l a t e r

, R o b e r t a n d h i s b r o t h e r

c l a i m e d t h a t R o b e r t f a l s e l y t e s t i f

i e d a g a i n s t h i s s t e p

- f

a t h e r b e c a u s e o f t h r e a t s a n d

m a n i p u l a t i o n b y h i s n a t u r a l f a t h e r

. I d

. a t 2 1 0

. S i m i l a r l y

, i n T u l e y

, t h e d e f

e n d a n t p l e d g u i l t y

a n d t h e n l e a r n e d l a t e r o n t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n a n t “ h a d c o n s i s t e n t l y r e c a n t e d h e r a l l e g a t i o n s s i n c e

b e f o r e h i s t r i a l

. ” 1 0 9 S

. W

. 3 d a t 3 9 5

– 9 6

. “ T o s u p p o r t t h e r e c a n t a t i o n t h e a p p l i c a n t s u b m i t t e d

See Robbins

, 360 S.W .3d at 463 (P rice

, J

., concur ring ) (“[D] ue process wil l not tolerate 1 9

stigmatizing and punishing an individual who can definitively demonstrate that he did not commit

the cr ime for whic h he has be en convic ted. Thus, actua l innoc ence is c oncer ned with the acc urac y

of the orig inal proce eding .”).PAL MBERG — 21

a f f i d a v i t s f r o m t h e c o m p l a i n a n t

, f

r o m t h e c o m p l a i n a n t ’ s b e s t f r i e n d a t t h e t i m e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s

w e r e m a d e

, A

. S

. , a n d t h e c o m p l a i n a n t ’ s b o y f r i e n d a t t h e t i m e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s w e r e m a d e

,

B

. G

. ” I d

.

I n t h i s s i t u a t i o n

, h o w e v e r

, A p p l i c a n t d o e s n o t h a v e a n y n e w e v i d e n c e t h a t s h o w s t h a t

h e w a s i n n o c e n t

. A p p l i c a n t c a n s a y o n l y t h a t

, b e c a u s e t h e s u b s t a n c e c a n n o t b e t e s t e d

, t h e

e v i d e n c e m i g h t b e l e g a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v e i t w a s a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e

. T h a t d o e s n o t

a m o u n t t o n e w e v i d e n c e t h a t e s t a b l i s h e s A p p l i c a n t ’ s i n n o c e n c e ; n o r d o e s i t n e c e s s a r i l y p u t

t h e a c c u r a c y o f A p p l i c a n t ’ s j u d i c i a l c o n f e s s i o n a n d s u b s e q u e n t c o n v i c t i o n i n q u e s t i o n

. T h e 2 0

p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e h e p o s s e s s e d w a s c o c a i n e r e m a i n s u n c h a n g e d

. T h e r e f o r e

, t h e

a c c u r a c y o f t h e c o n v i c t i o n i s n o t i m p u g n e d

, a n d w e c a n n o t g r a n t A p p l i c a n t r e l i e f u n d e r a n

a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e r a t i o n a l e

.

4

. S t a t e K n o w l e d g e / I n e f f e c t i v e A s s i s t a n c e o f C o u n s e l

F i n a l l y

, A p p l i c a n t c l a i m s t h a t

, “ [ i ] f t h e S t a t e h a d p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e l a b o r a t o r y r e p o r t

[ e x p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e c o u l d n o t b e t e s t e d ] a t t h e t i m e o f A p p l i c a n t ’ s p l e a o r e v e n i f

t h e d e f e n s e l a w y e r h a d s i m p l y f a i l e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e a n e x i s t i n g l a b r e p o r t

, A p p l i c a n t w o u l d

h a v e a c l e a r a v e n u e f

o r r e l i e f

. ” A p p l i c a n t ’ s B r i e f a t 1 5

. I f A p p l i c a n t c o u l d s h o w t h a t

, w h e n

h e e n t e r e d h i s g u i l t y p l e a

, t h e S t a t e k n e w a b o u t a n d h i d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e c o u l d n o t

b e t e s t e d

, t h e n t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e w o u l d b e d i f f e r e n t

. B u t w e k n o w t h a t w a s n o t

I n the plea paper s, Applicant acknow ledg ed t h at h e understood the alleg ations in the 2 0

information alleg ing that he possessed coca ine, and he “conf ess[ed] that they are true[.] ” See T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 1.15 (re quiring the State to introduce evidenc e sufficie nt to support a g uilty

plea)

.PAL MBERG — 22

t h e c a s e h e r e b e c a u s e i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e l a b o r a t o r y d i d n o t f i n d o u t t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e

c o u l d n o t b e t e s t e d u n t i l 2 0 0 9

, t w o y e a r s a f t e r t h e p l e a

. W e h a v e n o o c c a s i o n a t t h i s t i m e t o

a d d r e s s w h a t s h o u l d h a p p e n i f a n a p p l i c a n t w e r e t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e S t a t e k n e w a b o u t

a n d c o n c e a l e d t h e f

a c t t h a t c o n t r a b a n d c o u l d n o t b e t e s t e d p r i o r t o a g u i l t y p l e a

.

T u r n i n g t o t h e i n e f

f e c t i v e c o u n s e l a n a l o g y

, w e c o u l d c o n c e d e t h a t A p p l i c a n t m i g h t

b e e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f i f h e c o u l d d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t h i s c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e p r o o f

t h a t t h e S t a t e w o u l d a c t u a l l y h a v e a t t r i a l

. B u t b e f o r e w e c o u l d d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r d e f e n s e

c o u n s e l e r r e d b y e n c o u r a g i n g a p l e a i n A p p l i c a n t ’ s s i t u a t i o n

, w e w o u l d n e e d t o i n q u i r e i n t o

t h e s p e c i f

i c f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g c o u n s e l ’ s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f A p p l i c a n t

. W h e t h e r e n c o u r a g i n g

t h e p l e a c o n s t i t u t e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l c o u l d t u r n

, f o r e x a m p l e

, o n c o u n s e l ’ s

a p p r a i s a l o f t h e e v i d e n c e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e p l e a

. I f c o u n s e l u r g e d A p p l i c a n t t o a c c e p t t h e

S t a t e ’ s p l e a o f

f e r w i t h o u t a d e q u a t e l y a s s e s s i n g t h e S t a t e ’ s c a s e a n d w i t h o u t m e n t i o n i n g t h e

f a c t t h a t l a b o r a t o r y t e s t i n g w a s n o t y e t c o m p l e t e

, t h e n A p p l i c a n t m i g h t h a v e a c o l o r a b l e S i x t h

A m e n d m e n t a r g u m e n t t h a t h e w a s i n d u c e d t o p l e a d b y h i s c o u n s e l ’ s i n c o m p e t e n c e

. I f

,

h o w e v e r

, c o u n s e l w a r n e d A p p l i c a n t a b o u t t h e f a c t t h a t t e s t i n g h a d n o t b e e n c o m p l e t e d

, b u t

s t i l l e n c o u r a g e d A p p l i c a n t t o a c c e p t t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e S t a t e ’ s p l e a o f

f e r e v e n a f t e r a p p r i s i n g

A p p l i c a n t o f a l l r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, w e w o u l d b e h a r d p r e s s e d t o c o n c l u d e t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s

s t r a t e g i c a d v i c e f

e l l b e l o w t h e s t a n d a r d o f p r o f e s s i o n a l c o m p e t e n c y

. I n a n y e v e n t

, A p p l i c a n t 2 1

I f a defe ndant wer e to rea dily admit to his counsel that the substance he had possessed was 2 1

contra band and that any future fore n s i c testing of the substance would undoubtedly bear that out,

counsel might well choose not to wait for the results of fore nsic testing befor e advising his client to

embra ce the benef

its of a favor able “fa st trac k” plea offe r from the State. “[S] trateg ic choice s madePAL MBERG — 23

d o e s n o t b r i n g a n i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l c l a i m i n t h i s w r i t a p p l i c a t i o n

, n o r h a s h e

e x p l i c i t l y a l l e g e d a n y i n c o m p e t e n c e o n t h e p a r t o f t r i a l c o u n s e l

. F o r t h a t r e a s o n

, w e l i m i t o u r

a n a l y s i s a n d h o l d i n g t o d a y t o t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s a r g u m e n t i n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n

. N o t h i n g a b o u t

t r i a l c o u n s e l ’ s a d v i c e i n t h i s c a s e h a s b e e n s h o w n t o r e n d e r A p p l i c a n t ’ s g u i l t y p l e a

i n v o l u n t a r y

.

C O N C L U S I O N

F o r a l l t h e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e

, w e d e n y r e l i e f

.

D E L I V E R E D : F e b r u a r y 2 4

, 2 0 1 6

P U B L I S H

afte r less than complete investiga tion are rea sonable prec isely to the extent that reasonable

profe ssional judgme nts support the limitation on i nvestig ation. I n other wor ds, counsel has a duty

to make rea sonable investiga tions o r t o m ak e a rea sonable decision that makes particula r

investiga tions unnecessa

ry .” Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 690-91 (1984).