IN THE COUR T OF CR IMIN AL APPEALS OF TEX AS

N O. PD-1299-18

LESLEY DIAMON D, Ap pellant

v.
THE STATE OF TEX AS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCR ETION AR

Y R EV IEW AFTER OPIN ION ON R EHEAR IN G FR OM THE FOUR TEEN TH COUR T OF APPEALS

HAR R IS COUN TY

N ewell, J., d elivered the op inion of the unanimous Court
. Appellant has filed a mo t io n fo r rehearing in t his case. We grant Appellant ’s mo t io n fo r rehearing and wit hdraw o ur previo us opinio n. We
subst it ut e t his o p inio n in it s place.
Andrea Go o den was a labo rat ory t e c h n ician who analyzed Appellant ’s blo o d f o r alco ho l co nt ent in t h is case. Aft er Appellant ’s t rial,

it was revealed t h at s he h ad—befo re t he t r ial—mist ak enly cert ified a
blo o d alco ho l analysis repo rt in an u nrelat ed case where a po lice o fficerD I AMOND — 2

had mislabeled t h e submissio n fo rm acco mpanying a blo o d sample. D ue

t o her self-repo rt of t he erro neo us cert ificat io n t o her s uperviso r, Go o den
had been t empo rarily r e mo ved fro m casewo rk at t he t ime o f Appellant ’s

t rial so s he co uld r esearch and do cument t his incident

. T he pro secut o rs
in t his case, unaware of t he pro blem in t he u n r el a t ed case, f ailed t o
disclo se this info rmat io n t o Appe l l a n t p rio r to Go o den’s t est imo ny in Appellant ’s t rial. T he quest io n befo r e us is w h e t h er t his evidence is

mat erial. T he po st -co nvict io n habeas co urt co ncluded it w as no t and
denied Art icle 11.09 relief. Based upo n t he reco rd befo re us, we agree.
We reverse t he co urt o f appeals’ ho lding t o t he co n t rary and upho ld t he
habeas co urt ’s ruling.

BACKGR OUN D Appellant was co nvict ed fo r misdemeano r driving while int o xicat ed (DWI ). 1 She did no t appeal her co nvict io n. But aft er a jury co nvict ed Appellant , Andrea Go o den, t he lab technician who had analyzed Appellant ’s b lo o d, self-rep o r t e d t o t h e T e x a s F o r e n sic Science Co mmissio n (T FSC) t hat t he crime lab had v io lat e d qualit y co n t ro l and d o cument at io n

pro t oco ls in ano t her, unrelat ed cas e
. An invest igat io n fo llo wed
, and

r e p o rt s by t h e Ho ust o n Office o f t he I nspect o r General (OI G) and t h e

1 Se e T EX
. P EN A L C ODE § 49.04.D I AMOND — 3

T F SC were given t o Appellant aft er t hey became available.

I n respo nse, Appellant filed an applicat io n fo r a w r it o f habeas

co rp u s u n d e r T exas Co de o f Criminal Pro cedure Art icle 11.09, 2 alleging

t h a t t h e St at e had suppressed favo rable impeachment evidenc e i n
vio lat io n o f her right t o due pro cess. 3 Specifically, she claimed t hat t he

St at e f ailed t o disclo s e t hat , b efo re Go o den t e s t i f i e d in h er trial: ( 1)

Go o d en cert ified a mislabeled lab repo r t in an unrelat ed case; and ( 2)

Go o d en’s superviso r, William Arno ld, had t empo rarily remo ved Go o den
fro m her casewo rk

. A p p ellant argued t hat t he undisclo sed evidence

wo u ld have enabled h e r t o impeach Go o den and eit h er exclude her

t est imo n y ent irely o r discredit it , result ing in an acquit t al o r a deadlo cked jury.

T h e habeas co urt , presided o ver by the same j u d ge who presided

o v er t he trial, c onduct ed an evident iary hearing o n Appellant ’s claims.

Bo t h A r n o l d a n d Go oden t est ified at the habeas hearing. T he habeas

co urt u lt imat ely denied Appellant ’s w r it applicat io n, f inding t hat t he
undisclo sed evidenc e wa s n e it her favo rable no r m at erial. The co urt o f

2 T EX
. C ODE C RI M
. P R O ., ar t. 11.09 (“ I f a pe r son i s con fi ne d on a ch ar ge of mi sde me an or , h e may appl y to th e cou n ty j u dge of th e cou n ty i n wh i ch th e mi sde me an or i s ch ar ge d to h ave be e n commi tte d, o r i f th e r e be n o cou n ty j udge i n sai d cou n ty, th e n to th e cou n ty j u dge wh ose r e si de n ce i s n e ar e st to th e cou r th o u se of th e cou n ty i n wh i ch th e appl i can t i s h e l d i n cu stody.”).

3 Appe l l an t doe s n ot ar gu e th at th e u n di scl ose d e vi de n c e was e xcu l pator y.D I AMOND — 4

appeals disagreed and reversed. We gra n t e d t h e St at e’s pet it io n fo r
discret io nary review t o address whet her t he co urt o f a p peals failed t o apply t he st andard o f r e view co rrect ly in co nduct ing it s mat erialit y analysis.

Fac ts Develop ed at Trial
While co nduct ing a t raffic st o p o n ano t h er vehicle, Deput y Bo unds

saw Appellant speed past him in t he l a n e c lo sest t o his pat ro l car.
Bo un d s go t int o his pat r o l car, t urned o n his light s, and pursued t he
vehicle fo r a lo ng time befo re Appellant f inally st o p ped. Du r ing t he
pursuit , Appellant made several unsafe lane changes wit ho u t s ignaling,
which caused o ther drivers t o slam o n t heir brakes.
When Appellant st epped o ut o f her vehicle, she st aggered and co uld

no t keep her balance. She appeared d iso rient ed. She s aid t hat she was

co ming f ro m a go lf co urse at a co unt ry club but was unable t o ident ify t he

name o r lo cat io n o f t h e club, despit e being asked mult iple t imes. She
admit t ed she h ad c onsumed t hree Bud Light b eers t hat day. T here was

o n e open can o f beer and t wo co ld, uno pened cans o f beer in her vehicle.
She and her car smelled st r o ngly o f alco h o l. She was visibly int o xicat ed:
she had red, glassy eyes and sl u rred speech. She appeared co nfused, being unable t o ident ify t he medicat io n she was t aking.D I AMOND — 5

Bo unds request e d ano t her deput y t o assist him wit h t he t r affic st o p. Deput y Francis arrived an d a d m i n ist ered t w o st andard f ield so briet y t est s:

t he Walk and T urn (WAT ) and the O ne-leg St and (OLS). Alt ho ugh Deput y
Francis made a fe w m i s t akes while administ ering t h e test s, Appellant
f a i l e d b o t h t est s. During t he WAT t est , Appellant e x hibit ed five o ut o f eight c lues o f int o xicat io n. 4 And d uring t he OLS t e st , Appellant exhibit ed
fo ur o ut o f fo u r c lues o f i n t o xicat io n
. 5 Deput y Bo unds det ermined t hat Appellant was “ int o xicat e d ” b e ca u s e she had lo st t he no r mal use o f her

ment al and physical facult ies. 6
Deput y Bo unds placed App e llant under arrest fo r DWI

. Aft er Appellant refused to give a sample o f he r breat h or blo o d fo r alco h o l analysis, Deput y Bo u nds secured a warrant t o obt ain a sample o f her
blo o d

. A r egist e red nurse drew Appellant ’ s blo o d. Appellant ’s blo o d vials

4 A s u b j ec t i s de e me d to be i n toxi cate d i f sh e de mon str ate s at l e ast two of th e e i gh t cl ue s of i n toxi cati on du r i n g th e W AT te st: (1) Fai l u r e to bal an ce du r i n g i n str u c ti on s; (2) Star ti n g too soon ; (3) Stoppi ng wh i l e wal ki n g; (4) Fai l u r e to tou ch h e e l -to-toe ; (5) Ste ppi ng off th e l i ne ; (6) Usi n g ar ms to bal an ce ; (7) Losi n g bal an ce on th e tu r n or tu r n i n g i n cor r e ctl y; an d (8) Taki n g th e wr on g n u mbe r

of ste ps. DWI De te cti on Man u al , VI I -5.

5 A su bj e ct i s de e me d to be i ntoxi cate d i f s h e i s u n abl e to pe r f or m th e te st or i f sh e d e m o n str ate s at l e ast two of th e f ou r cl u e s of i n toxi cati on du r i n g th e O LS te st: (1) Swa y i n g wh i l e bal an ci n g; (2) Usi n g ar ms to bal an c e ; (3) Hoppi ng; an d (4) Pu tti n g foot down

. DWI De te c ti on Man u al , VI I -6.

6 Se e T EX
. P EN A L C ODE § 49.01(2)(A) ( “I n toxi cati on ” me an s n ot h avi n g th e n or mal u s e of me n tal or ph ysi cal facu l ti e s by r e ason of th e i n tr odu cti on of al c oh ol , a con tr ol l e d su bstan ce , a dr u g, a dan ge r ou s dr u g, a combi n ati on of two or mor e of th o s e s u b st an ce s, or an y oth e r su bstan ce i n to th e body.”).D I AMOND — 6

were labeled wit h D eput y Bo und’s init ials, Appellant ’s name, and t he case
number. T he vials w ere placed int o an envelo pe, labeled wit h Appellant ’s

name and t h e case n u mber, and sealed wit h t ape. Deput y Bo unds
delivered t h e blo o d vials t o a secure lo ckbo x at t he H o ust on Po lice
Depart ment

. Andrea Go oden, an analyst fro m the H o ust o n Po lice Depart ment

Crime Lab, ret ri e v ed t he sealed envelo pe co nt aining Appellant ’s blo o d

samp l e s
. T here did no t appear t o be any t ampering wit h t h e envelo pe.
Prio r t o t e s t i n g Appellant ’s blo od s ample, Go o d en o bserved Appellant ’s

name o n t he envelo pe and Appellant ’s name o n the blo o d v ials inside t hat
envelo pe. T he v ials c o nt ained a manufact uring label t hat , in addit io n t o Appellant ’s name, had t he s a m e case n umber, init ials, and dat e as t he
envelo pe. Go o den fo llo w ed all o f t he lab’s st andard o perat ing pro c edures

t hat were i n p l a c e at the t ime she analyzed Appellant ’s b lo o d. H er analysis revealed a blo o d alco ho l co ncent rat io n (BAC) of 0.193, which is
abo ve t h e legal limit o f 0.08.

T h e jury fo u n d Appellant guilt y o f driving w hile int oxicat e d

. 7 T hen,
aft er a special-issue hearing, t he jury fo und t hat Appellant ’s B AC was

7 Se e T EX
. P EN A L C ODE § 49.04(a) (“A pe r son c ommi ts an offe n s e i f t h e p e r son i s i n toxi cate d wh i l e ope r ati n g a motor ve hi cl e i n a pu bl i c pl ace .”).D I AMOND — 7

0.15 o r mo re at t h e t ime t he analysis was perfo rmed. 8 T he jury was dismissed, and t he co urt p ro ceeded t o t he punishment phase. T he judge

pro no unced t hat Appellant was co nvict ed o f a C lass A misdemeano r,

sent enced her t o five days in jail, and assessed a $2,000 fine.

Post-Convic tion Writ Proc eed ing s
Prio r t o Go oden t est ifying in Appellant ’s case, a po lice o fficer in an
unrelat ed case t urned in an evidence envelo pe c o nt aining a blo o d sample
and a c a s e submissio n fo r m t o t he H o ust on Po lice D epart ment Crime
Lab. Alt ho ugh t he o fficer labeled t he blo o d v ial s w i t h t he co rrect name
and incid e nt number, he put the wro ng case info rmat io n o n t he
submissio n fo rm. 9 T h e analyst who received t he sample n o t ed t he discrepancy in t he case fo lder:

T h e name o f t h e submissio n fo rm and LI M S is “ Ro man-Reyna, Fran c i s Javier.” T he name o n t he e n velo pe & b lo o d t ubes is

“ Hurt a d o , David.” T he t u bes have t he incident #

“ 124607913” , which is no t o n LI MS. 1 0

8 S e e T E X
. P E N A L C ODE § 49.04(d) (“I f i t i s sh own on th e tr i al of an offe n se u n de r th i s se cti on th at an an al y si s of a spe ci me n of th e pe r son 's bl ood, br e ath , or u r i n e sh o we d an al coh ol con ce n tr ati on l e ve l o f 0.15 or mor e at th e ti me th e an al ysi s was pe r f or m e d , th e offe n se i s a Cl ass A mi sde me an or .”).

9 Wh i l e both th e h abe as cou r t an d cou r t of appe al s s t a t e th at th e bl ood vi al s we r e mi sl abe l e d, th e OI G an d T FSC r e por ts sh ow th at th e s u bmi s si on f or m accompan yi n g th e bl ood vi al s actu al l y con ta i n ed t h e l abe l i n g e r r or
. T he l owe r cou r ts’ con fu si on i s u n de r stan dabl e , e spe ci al l y gi ve n th e si mi l ar i ty be twe e n th e i n ci de n t n u mbe r s.

10 LI MS i s sh or t for Labor ator y I n for mati on Man age me n t Syste m. Re por ts i n LI MS can be acce sse d by pr ose cu tor s.D I AMOND — 8

T h is first analyst co n tact ed t he submit t ing officer and request ed t hat he

pro vide a co rrect ed submissio n fo rm.
While wai ting fo r t h e revised fo rm, Go o den wo rked o n t h e case.
Pursuant t o co mmo n l a b p ract ice, Go o den analyzed t he blo o d sample,
draft ed a blo od alco h ol repo rt , and set t he case aside wit ho u t signing t he

repo rt unt il t h e o fficer c ould reso lve t he name discrepancy. L ike the first analyst , Go o den n ot ed t he discrepancy. First , she labeled t h e blo o d
evidence t o indicat e t hat t h e a nalysis was co mplet e but was being held pending t h e r evised s ubmissio n fo r m. Seco nd, she co rrect ed t he bat cht echnic a l

- r eview repo r t by cro ssing o ut Ro man-Reyna’s n ame and
handwrit ing Hurt ado ’ s name.
Ho wever, abo ut a m o nt h lat er, Go oden mist ak e nly s igned t he

“ cert ificat e o f analysis” o n t he blo o d alco ho l r epo rt she had p revio usly s et

a si de

. She t hen placed the repo rt in t he queue f o r review. T he repo r t

co rrespo nded t o t he inco rrect defendant list ed in t he case su bm i s sio n
fo rm ( Ro man-Reyna). But t he case fo lder co rrect ly no t ed t h e n a m e o f

t he defendant who had p ro vided t he blo o d sample (Hurt ado ). T h at same day, William Arno ld, the lab’s int erim t o xico lo gy m anager, co nduct ed bo t h

t he t echnical and administ rat ive reviews o f the c ase. Arno ld d id no t cat ch

t hat t he repo rt had been submit t ed u nder t he wro ng defendant ’s name.D I AMOND — 9

And he appro ved it , causing t he e rro n eo us repo rt to be released in LI MS.

A few weeks befo re Appellant ’s t rial, Go o den no t iced t hat a blo o d sample belo nging to H urt ado had been set aside wit h a no t e in her
handwrit ing: “ Wait i n g on Officer R e ply already analyzed. —Andrea.” Right away, Go o den invest igat ed. And aft e r researching in L I MS, she
disco vered t hat t he b lo o d alco ho l repo rt had been released t o pro secut o rs handling t he case invo lving Ro man-Reyna. Go o d en immediat e ly no t ified
her superio rs. T he n e x t d ay, Arno ld emailed Go o d en telling her t o
do cument what went wro ng:
Unt il f u r t her no t ice yo u are t o fo cus so lely o n do cument ing t he i s sues surro und[ing] t he [erro rs] in t h e case we disc u s s e d yest erday. Do no t h andle any e vidence, pro cess any dat a o r generat e any repo rt s o r do cument at io n t hat is unrelat ed t o yo ur research o n t his case.

***

Generat e a do cument wit h yo ur f indings in m emo fo rmat in as much det ail as y o u can accurat e ly recall and/o r demo nst rat e via exist ing do c ument at io n.
Go o d en t o o k t h is email t o mean t hat s he was t empo rarily remo ved fro m

casewo r k t o draft t he m emo and ensure t he relat ed case d o cument at io n

was placed in t he file. Arno ld did no t o t herwise do cument this act io n o r
disclo se it t o t he Dist rict At t o rney’s Office.

T h e fo llo wing day, Go o den sent Arno ld her memo and assumed sheDI AMOND — 10

co uld ret urn t o her casewo rk. But a few days lat er, Arno ld t old her t hat
alt ho ugh t he issue was reso lved, she co u ld no t ret urn t o casewo rk
because he and o the rs u p t h e chain of c o mmand needed t o review her

memo
. Go o den t herefo re wo rked on disco very orders in o t her cases but
did no t analyze blo od. At the t ime, Arno ld w as aware t hat Go o den was
due t o t e st ify in Appellant ’s upco ming case. T he fo llo wing week, Go o den

t est ified in Appellant ’s t rial. I t was t h e f irst t ime she had t est ified in a

case. Arno ld o bserved Go o den’s tri a l t est imo ny but did no t t est ify
himself.
Aft er Appellant ’s t rial, Arno ld made a number o f claims relat ed t o
Go o d en’s wo rk st at u s and c o mpet ency as an analyst

. Specifically, during
his habeas t e st imo ny, Arno ld claimed t hat at t he t ime Go o den t e st ified in Appellant ’s t rial, she was “ s uspended” fro m casewo rk due t o t h e Hurt ado
incid e n t a n d his co ncerns abo u t her o verall kno wledge base. But t he
habeas co urt did no t be l i eve Arno ld. I t fo u nd t hat at t h e t ime o f Appellant ’s t rial, Go o d en had been t empo rarily remo ved fr o m casewo rk

t o d o c u m e nt t he Hurt ado erro r. And Arno ld’s use of the t e rm

“ suspended” o r “ under suspensio n” t o describe Go oden’s wo rk st at us was

“ suspect ”

and “ unpersuasive.”

Mo reo ver, the i n v e s t igat io ns by the OI G and T FSC s ho wed t hatDI AMOND — 11

Arno ld pro vided inco nsist ent reaso ns f or remo ving Go o den fro m

casewo r k, lo ng befo re his habeas t est imo ny. 1 1 Be f o r e Appellant ’s t rial,

Arno ld t o ld Go o den t h at it was so she co uld f ocus so lely on do cument ing

t he issues surro u nding t h e Hurt ado i nc ident

. Y et aft e r Appellant ’s t rial,

Arno ld t o ld Go o den (t wice) t hat it was d ue t o h er t rial t est imo ny. T hen,
aft er Go o d en h ad co nt act ed t he American So ciet y o f Crime Lab Direct o rs (ASCLD), self-disclo sed t o the T FSC, and co mmunicat ed wit h the lab’s HR
direct o r abo ut ret u rning t o casewo rk, 1 2 Arno ld said t hat h er “ suspensio n”

was due t o t he Hurt ado incident c o u p led wit h his co ncerns abo ut her
kno wledge base. 1 3 But this was t he first t ime t hat Go o den was labeled as

“ suspended.” And despi t e h i s claims t hat he had been having do ubt s
abo ut her abilit y t o t est ify, Arn o ld let Go oden t est ify in Appellant ’s trial
a few weeks aft er he had allegedly fo r med t hese co n cerns. 1 4

11 Notabl y, r e por ts by th e Te xas For e n si c Sci e n ce Commi ssi on ar e i n admi s si bl e i n a c i vi l or cr i mi nal acti on
. T E X
. C ODE C RI M
. P R OC ., ar t. 38.01 § 11. Howe ve r , th e y we r e admi tte d wi th ou t o bj e cti on at th e h e ar i n g o n Appe l l an t’s appl i c ati o n for a post-con v i cti o n wr i t of h abe as cor pu s. Th e h abe as cou r t r e l i e d u pon th e se r e por ts i n r e ach i n g i ts con cl usi on , an d n e i th e r par ty ch al l e n ge s th e pr opr i e ty of th e admi ssi on of th e r e por t i n th i s case
.

12 Afte r Goode n h ad me t wi th th e l ab’s Hu man Re sou r ce s (HR) di r e ctor abou t r e tu r n i n g to case wor k, Ar n ol d i nsi n u ate d to th e HR di r e ctor th at i t was du e to c on c e r ns r e l ate d to h e r abi l i ty to te sti fy. Rath e r th an docu me n t h i s con ce r n s, h e s ai d th at he pr e fe r r e d Goode n be r e tr ai n e d u n ti l h e was comfor tabl e th at sh e wou l d do we l l on th e stan d.

13 Th i s con tr adi cte d th e HFSC Lab Di r e ctor ’s r e pr e se n tati on made a fe w days e ar l i e r to t h e TFSC th at Goode n was r e move d du e to con ce r n s abou t h e r abi l i ty to te sti f y i n cou r t, n o t be c au se of th e Hu r tado i n ci de n t.

14 Accor di n g th e T FSC r e por t, wh i l e off c ase wor k, Goode n te sti fi e d i n th r e e tr i al s an d “on su bse qu e n t occasi on s as we l l .”DI AMOND — 12

T h e invest igat io n by t h e T FSC also sho wed o t her reaso ns fo r
disco unt ing Arno ld’s descript io n o f e v e n ts. Amo ng t hem, Arno ld

at t empt ed t o b lame Go o den fo r t he repo rt ing erro r in t h e Hurt ado case.
Y e t , all int erviewees who part icipat ed in t he TFSC’s invest igat io n believed

Go o d en t o be a co mpet ent analyst wh o wa s “ unfairly blamed.” T he prevailing view was t hat Arno ld was suppo sed t o cat c h t he erro rs in t he

repo rt , such as t he wro ng name, during his t echnical and administ rat ive

reviews o f t he case. 1 5 He did no t

. Specifically, Arno ld h ad no t reviewed

t he case in sufficient det ail: he failed t o no t ice t hat the incident number

o n t h e repo rt did no t m at c h t h e blo o d vials; t hat t h e alleged suspect in

t he s ubmit t ed incident fo rm o nly had a breat h t e s t r a t her t h an a blo o d draw; t h at the first analyst had no t ed t he name discrepancy in t h e case
fo lder; and t h a t t his case was fro m an e arlier bat c h-t echnical-review

repo rt fro m December (o n which Go o den h ad h a nd-writ t e n Hurt ado ’s

name as a co rrect io n). Arno ld also failed t o m ake a co nnect io n b et ween previo us inquiries abo u t missing evidence in t h e H u r t ado case and t he
info rmat io n no t e d in t he case fo lder. 1 6

1 5 As e xpl ai n e d i n th e TFSC r e por t, th e pu r pose of th e admi n i s tr ati ve r e vi e w i s to i de n ti fy e r r or s e xactl y l i ke th e on e th at h ad occu r r e d h e r e
.

16 A l i ttl e ove r a we e k be for e Ar n ol d con du cte d h i s r e v i e ws, th e Har r i s Cou n ty ADA assi gn e d to th e Hu r tado case s e n t an e mai l to th e l ab r e qu e sti n g th e r e su l ts associ ate d wi th th e bl ood al c oh ol e v i de n ce for Hu r tado be cau se he cou l d n o t fi nd th e r e su l ts i n LI M S. Th e l abDI AMOND — 13

Mo reo ver, o nly days aft er appro ving t he e rr o n e o u s l y c e r t i f i e d r e po rt , Arno ld received an e mail fro m t he submit t ing o ffice r a b o u t t he missing
blo o d evidence fo r Hurt ado

. I n it , t he o fficer explain e d t h a t “ t he [Hurt ado ] c ase was mixed up wit h ano t her case” d ue to his erro r o n t he
submissio n fo rm. 1 7 T his email di d no t t rigger any fo llo w-up o r
invest igat io n in LI MS by Arno ld. T he f irst a n a l y st said it was her

u nderst anding that Arno ld was t aking o ver any necessary fo llo w - u p o n

t he case. Abo ut o ne mo nt h befo r e Appellant ’ s t rial, A rno ld received

ano t her email fro m t he submit t ing officer. I t st at e d t hat the blo o d
evidence belo nged t o Hurt ado —just as t he first analyst and Go o den had

no t ed in t h e case fo lde r. O n ce again, Arno ld did n o t h ing abo ut it

. Because o f Arno ld’s inact io n, Hurt ado ’s blo o d-alco ho l result s r emained

inco rrect ly assigned t o Ro man-Reyna in LI MS.

T h en, a few weeks befo re Appellant ’s t rial, Go o den to ld Arno ld abo ut

t he mist ake in t he r eleased repo rt

. Alt ho ugh h e wit hdrew t he repo rt fro m
LI M S b efo re it had been accessed by t he p ro secut io n, Arno ld t o o k no

e mpl oye e w h o r e c e i v e d th e ADA’s i n qu i r y for war de d i t to Ar n o l d. I n h i s e mai l to th e ADA, Ar n ol d c on fi r me d th at h e was al so u n abl e to fi n d th e case i n LI M S an d r e qu e s te d th e n ame of th e su bmi tti ng offi c e r
. Fi v e days l ate r , th e ADA r e spon de d wi th th e su bmi tti n g o ffi ce r ’s n ame
. Th at sa m e day, Ar nol d se n t an e mai l to th e su bmi tti n g offi ce r i nqu i r i n g abou t th e bl ood e vi de nce for Hu r tado, wh i ch at th e ti me appe ar e d to be mi ssi n g si n c e i t was i n LI MS u n de r th e wr on g de fe n dan t’s n ame
.

17 Se e su pr

a , n ote 11.DI AMOND — 14

addit io nal st eps to fix t h e repo rt

. T he r epo rt remained unco rrect ed fo r

mo nt hs.

T h e t rial co u r t co nsidered t h is ev idence and denied Appellant ’s habeas applicat io n.
APPEAL

On appeal, Appellant argu e d t hat t he habeas co urt erred in

co ncluding t hat t he u n disclo sed evidence was neit her favo r able no r
mat erial. 1 8 I n it s subst it ut e majo r it y opinio n, the co urt o f appeals agreed
and reversed t h e habeas co ur t ’s denial o f Appellant ’s writ applicat io n, grant ed habeas r elief, and remanded t he c ase fo r furt her p ro ceedings. 1 9

T h e co urt co ncluded t hat the undisclo s ed evidence was favo rable because Appellant co uld have u sed it o n cro ss-examinat io n t o impeach po rt io ns

o f Go oden’s t est imo ny o r t o get t he t rial co urt t o exclude her t e st imo ny

18 Br ady v. Mar

ylan d , 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (h ol di n g “th at th e su ppr e ssi on b y t h e pr ose c u ti on of e vi de n c e favor abl e to an accu se d upon r e qu e s t vi ol ate s du e pr o ce ss wh e r e th e e vi de nce i s mate r i al e i th e r to gu i l t or to pu n i s h me n t, i r r e spe cti v e o f th e good fai th or bad fai th of th e pr ose cu ti on ”).

19 D iamon d v. State , 561 S.W.3d 288 (Te x. App.—Hou ston [14th D i st.] Oct. 23, 2018) (su bsti tu te op.). Or i gi n al l y, th e Fou r te e n th Cou r t of Appe al s i ss u e d a pu bl i sh e d opi n i on affi r mi n g th e de n i al of h abe as cor pu s r e l i e f i n May 2018. D iamon d v. State , 2018 WL 2050392 (Te x. App.—Hou ston [14th D i st.] May 3, 2018), opin ion with dr awn an d su pe r

se de d by D iamon d v. State , 2018 WL 4326441 (Te x. App.—Hou ston [14th Di st.] Se pt. 11, 2018) (op. on r e h ’g). Afte r th e cou r t of appe al s h ad i s su e d i ts opi n i on , th e cou r t of appe al s gr an te d r e h e ar i n g an d i ssu e d pu bl i sh e d o pi n i on s r e ve r s i n g th e de n i al of h abe as cor pu s r e l i e f i n Se pte mbe r 2018. D iamon d , 2018 WL 4326441, opin ion with dr awn an d su pe r

se de d by D iamon d , 561 S.W.3d 288. Th e State th e n move d f or r e h e ar i n g. Th e cou r t o f appe al s de n i e d th e State ’s moti on for r e h e ar i n g, wi th dr e w i ts Se pte mbe r o pi n i o ns, an d i ssu e d pu bl i sh e d su bsti tu te opi n i on s r e ve r si n g th e de n i al of tr i al cor pu s r e l i e f i n Octobe r 2018. Id

. Th e se Octobe r opi ni on s ar e th e su bj e ct of th e State ’s pe ti ti on
.DI AMOND — 15

ent irely.

I n making t his det erminat io n, the co u rt o f appeals relied heavily o n
Arno ld’s t e st imo ny t hat he lacked c o nfidence in Go o den’s o verall
kno wledge base. T he co urt also co n cluded that t he undisclo sed evidence

was mat erial because Go o den’s t est imo ny was necessary fo r t he jury t o
make an affirmat i v e finding o n t he s pecial issue of whet her Appellant ’s
BAC level was 0.15 o r mo re.
Just ice D o no van dissent ed

. He c o ncluded t hat t he undisclo sed
evidence was no t favo rable because it wo uld n o t i m peach t he evidence

t hat Appellant ’s blo o d w as analyzed c o r rect ly and t hat Appellant had a
BAC level o f 0.193. T his was especially t rue g i v e n t h e h abeas co urt ’s findings o f fact t hat the b lo o d samples were labeled as Appellant ’s and

t hat t here w as no evidence o f any erro rs in Go o d en’s analysis o f

A p p e l l a n t ’s blo o d

. Mo reo ver, t he co urt w as o bligat ed t o d efer t o t he
habeas co u rt ’ s c red i b ilit y assessment o f Arno ld—which included t he finding t hat Arno ld’s claims disparaging Go oden were no t c redible. T hus,

acco rding t o t he dissent , t he undisclo sed evidence was n o t m at erial
because t he likeliho o d o f a different res u l t w as no t great eno ugh t o
undermine co nfidence in t he o ut co m e o f t he t rial.

STAN DAR D OF R EV IEWDI AMOND — 16

An appellat e c o urt r eviewing a h abeas judge’s ruling in an art icle

11.09 applicat io n fo r writ o f habeas co rpus must view t he evidence in t he

reco rd in t he light mo st favo rable to t he judge’s ruling and must upho ld

t hat ruling absent an abuse o f discret io n. 2 0 An appellat e co urt a f f o r d s
almo st t o t al deference t o a habeas co urt ’s fact ual findings when they are

s u p po rt ed by t h e reco rd, especially w hen t ho s e findings are based o n
credibilit y and demeano r. 2 1 T his degree o f d eference also applies t o any implied findings and c onclusio ns suppo rt ed by t he r eco rd. 2 2 Ho wever, if

t he reso lut io n o f t he ult imat e quest io n t urns o n l y o n t he applicat io n o f legal st andards, t he appellat e c o urt re v iews t ho se det erminat io ns de

n o vo
. 2 3 T he reviewing co urt will upho ld t he habeas co urt ’s ruling if it i s

20 Se e E x par te Wh e e le r , 203 S.W.3d 317, 324 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2006) (Ar ti cl e 11.072); K n iatt v. State , 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2006) (Ar ti cl e 11.08).

21 E x par te Gar

cia , 353 S.W.3d 785, 787–88 (Te x
. Cr i m. App. 2011). Se e also State v. Gu e r r e r o , 400 S.W.3d 576, 583 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2013) (We affor d th i s l e ve l of de fe r e n ce “e ve n wh e n n o wi tn e sse s te sti fy an d al l of th e e vi de nce i s su bmi tte d th r ou gh affi davi ts, de posi ti on s, or i n te r r ogator i e s.”).

22 E x par te Har

r in gton , 310 S.W.3d 452, 457 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2010). Se e also E x par te Pe te r s on , 117 S.W.3d 804, 819 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2003) (stati n g th at r e vi e wi n g cou r ts sh ou l d gr an t de fe r e n ce to i mpl i c i t factu al fi n di n gs th at su ppor t th e tr i al cou r t’s ul ti mate r u l i ng, bu t th e y can n ot do so i f th e y ar e u n abl e to de te r mi n e fr om th e r e cor d wh at th e tr i al co u r t’s i mpl i e d factu al fi n di n gs ar e ), ove r r u le d on o th e r gr

ou n ds by E

x Par te Le wis , 219 S.W.3d 335 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2007).

23 E x Par te Be ck , 541 S.W.3d 846, 852 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2017); Gu z man v. State , 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 1997).DI AMOND — 17

co rrect under any t heo ry o f applicable law. 2 4 Det e rmining whe t her
part icular evidence w as “ mat erial” as part of a claimed Brady vio lat io n is

a m ixed quest io n o f law and fact

. 2 5 We g ive deference t o t he habeas

co urt ’s f act ual findings u nderlying it s d ecisio n b ut review the u lt imat e legal co nclusio n o f mat erialit y de no vo
. 2 6

We h ave previo u s ly addressed a significant dist inct io n bet ween t he

po st ure o f art icle 11.07 habeas cases and o t her (no n-deat h) habeas cases
when it co mes t o t he st andard o f review. 2 7 I n art icle 11.07 habeas cases,

t he habeas co urt is t he o r iginal fact finder but t his Co u rt is t he u lt imat e
fact finder. 2 8 T h e habeas co urt ’s f indings are no t aut o mat icall y binding

upo n us, alt h o ugh we usually accept t h e m if t hey are s uppo r t e d by t he

24 E x Par te Be ck , 541 S.W.3d at 852 (ci ti n g Absalon v. State , 460 S.W.3d 158, 162 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2015)).

25 E x par te We in ste in , 421 S.W.3d 65 6, 664 n .17 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2014). Se e also Su mme r

s v. D r e tke , 431 F.3d 861, 878 (5th Ci r
. 2005) (“Wh e th e r e vi de n c e i s mate r i al u n de r Br ady i s a mi xe d qu e sti o n of l aw an d fact.”); Un ite d State s v. Sipe , 388 F. 3d 471, 479 (5th Ci r
. 2004) (“Wh e r e as we typi cal l y an al yz e l e gal i ssu e s de novo, a Br ady de te r mi n ati on i s i n e vi tabl y a con te xtu al i nqu i r y, i nvol vi n g qu e sti on s of both l aw an d fact. M or e o v e r , i t i s i n ti mate l y i n te r twi n e d wi th th e tr i al pr oce e di n gs: be cau se th e cou r t mu st j udge th e e ffe ct of th e e vi de n c e on th e j u r y’s ve r di ct, th e Br ady de ci si on can n e ve r be di vor c e d fr o m th e n ar r ati v e of th e tr i al .”); Un ite d State s v. Se ve r n s , 559 F.3d 274, 278 (5th Ci r
. 2009) (“[W]h e r e th e moti on for a n e w tr i al i s base d on an al l e ge d Br ady vi ol ati on , th e B r ady de te r mi nati o n i s ‘i n e vi tabl y a con te xtu al i n qu i r y, i n vol vi n g qu e sti on s o f both l aw an d fact.’ W h i l e w e e x ami n e th e Br ady qu e sti on de n ovo, ‘ we mu st pr oce e d wi t h d e f e r e n c e to th e factu al fi n di n gs u n de r l yi n g th e di str i ct cou r t’s de c i si on
. ’”).

26 E x par te We in s te in , 421 S.W.3d at 664 n .17.

27 Se e E x par te Gar cia , 353 S.W.3d at 787 (Ar ti cl e 11.072).

28 Id. at 787–88.DI AMOND — 18

reco rd. 2 9 But in o t her (no n-deat h) h abeas c ases, t he t rial j udge is t he

so le fact finder. 3 0 T he co urt o f appeals and t his Co urt are t ruly appellat e

co urt s. 3 1 We have less leeway in t hese c ases t o disregard t he habeas

co urt ’s findings. 3 2

BR ADY CLAIM

An applicant fo r a po st -co nvict io n writ o f habeas co rpu s b e a rs t he
burden o f pro v ing her claim by a prepo nde r ance o f t he e vidence. 3 3 T o
demo nst rat e t hat she is ent it led t o po st -co nvict io n relief o n t he basis o f
reversible erro r under Brady , a habeas applicant must sho w t hat (1) t he

St at e failed t o disclo se evidence, regardless o f t he p ro secut io n’s go o d o r
bad fait h; (2) t he wit h h e ld evidence i s f avo rable t o her; and (3) t he
evidence is mat erial. 3 4

As we st at ed in Ex part e Miles , “ Favo rable evidence is t h a t which,
if d isclo sed and used effect i v e l y , ‘may make a difference b et ween

29 Id.

30 Id. at 788.

31 Id.

32 Id.

33 E x par te T

or r e s , 483 S.W.3d 35, 43 (2016); E x par te Lalon de , 570 S.W.3d 716, 725 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2019).

34 E x par te Mile s , 359 S.W.3d 647, 665 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2012).DI AMOND — 19

co nvict io n and ac q u i t t a l

. ’ ” 3 5 Favo rable e v idence includes bo t h exculpat o ry
evidence and impeachment evidence. 3 6 Exculpat o ry evidence i s t h at
which m ay “ just ify, excuse, or clear t he defendant fro m f ault ,” while impeachment evide n c e is t hat which “ disput es, disparages, denies, o r

co nt radict s o t her evidence.” 3 7

T h e no ndisclo sure o f favo rable eviden c e v i o lat es due pro cess o nly
if it i s “ m a t e r i al” t o g uilt o r punishment

. 3 8 Evidence is mat erial o nly if

t here is a reaso nable pro babilit y t hat , had it been disclo sed, the o ut co me

o f t h e t rial wo uld h ave been different

. 3 9 “ A ‘ reaso nable pro babilit y’ is a

pro babilit y suffici e n t to undermine co nfidence in t he o ut c o me.” 4 0

Mat erialit y is d et e rmined by examining t he alleged erro r in t he c o nt ext o f

t he ent ire reco rd a n d o verall st rengt h o f t he st at e’s case. 4 1 T he suppressed evidence is co nsidered co llect ively, no t it em-by-it e m. 4 2

35 Id. (ci ti n g Un ite d State s v. Bagle y , 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985)).

36 Id.

37 Id. (ci ti n g Har

m v. State , 183 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2006) an d Th omas v. State , 841 S.W.2d 399, 404 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 1992)).

38 Pe n a v. State , 353 S.W.3d 797, 812 (Te x . Cr i m. App. 2011).

39 Id. at 809.

40 E x Par te Lalon de , 570 S.W.3d at 724.

41 Id. (ci ti n g Har

m , 183 S.W.3d at 409).

42 E x par te Mile s , 359 S.W.3d at 666; Pe n a , 353 S.W.3d at 812.DI AMOND — 20
AN ALYSIS
Aft er viewing t he evidence in t he light m o st favo rable t o t he habeas

co urt ’s r uling, we ho ld t hat t he habeas co u rt was wit h in it s discret io n t o

co nclude t hat t he undisclo sed evidence was no t mat er i a l

. 4 3 The writ

reco rd generally s uppo rt s and c o nfirms t his co nclusio n. 4 4 T he undisclo sed
evidence Appellant co mplains abo ut is ( 1) Go o den’s cert ificat io n o f a

repo rt in ano t her case t h at co nt ained a labeling erro r by t h e submit t ing

o f ficer; and (2) Go oden’s tempo rary remo val fro m perfo rming her regular jo b dut ies t o pro vide do cument at io n regarding t hat erro r.
Lo o king at t he evidence in t he light mo st favo rable t o t he habeas

co urt ’s ruling, t h e re w a s o verwhelming evidence o f Appellant ’s

i n t o x i c a t io n t o suppo rt t he jury’s f inding o f guilt regardless o f Go o den’s

t est imo n y. 4 5 Appe l l a n t was speeding and made several unsafe lane

4 3 Se e E x par te We in ste in , 421 S.W.3d at 664 n .17 (we gi ve de fe r e n ce to th e h a b e a s cou r t’s factu al fi n di n gs u n de r l yi n g i ts de c i si on bu t r e vi e w th e u l ti mate l e gal con cl u si on of mate r i al i ty de n ovo); K n iatt , 206 S.W.3d at 664 (an appe l l ate cou r t r e v i e w i ng a tr i al j u dge ' s r u l i n g on a h abe as cl ai m mu st uph o l d th at r u l i n g abse nt an abu se of di scr e ti on ); E x par te Gar cia , 353 S.W.3d at 787–88 (appe l l ate c ou r ts h ave l e ss l e e way i n an ar ti cl e 11.072 con te xt to di s r e gar d th e h abe as cou r t's fi n di n gs be cau se th e h abe as j u dge i s th e sol e fact fi n de r ).

44 Th e h abe as cou r t fou nd th at “Ar n ol d’s r e pr e se n tati on th at Goode n was r e move d fr om case wor k ‘for con c e r n s r e gar di n g te sti mon y i n de pe n de n t fr om th e case wi th th e n ame e r r or do n ot compor t wi th th e ti me l i n e of facts.’” Accor di n g to th e TFSC Re por t, th e L ab Di r e ctor , n ot Ar n o l d, made th i s r e pr e se n tati on
. Th i s i s a di sti ncti on wi th ou t a di ffe r e n ce be cau se Ar n ol d made th e same r e pr e se n tati on to G oode n two ti me s afte r s h e h ad te sti fi e d for th e fi r st ti me i n Appe l l an t’s tr i al

.

45 Appe l l an t doe s n ot ar gu e th at th e u n di scl ose d e vi de n ce i s m a t e ri a l to pu n i sh me nt. I n ste ad, sh e ar gu e s th at i t i s mate r i al to th e con vi cti on — “Wi th ou t an y e vi de n ce of Appe l l an t's BAC, th e ju r y pr obabl y wou l d h ave acqu i tte d appe l l an t.” Appe l l an t’s Br . 55.DI AMOND — 21

changes wit ho ut signaling. Despit e t he o fficer’s illumin at ing light s, she

t o o k a lo ng t ime t o st o p her vehicle. When she e xit ed her v ehicle, Appellant w as visibly int o x i c a t ed: h er eyes were red and g lassy, her speech w as slurred, and she appeared co nfused. She and her car smelled

st ro ngly o f alco ho l. She admit t ed that she had been drinking. She had

o n e o pen can and t wo co ld, uno pened cans o f beer in h er vehicle. She
had lo s t t he n ormal use o f her ment al facult ies: she was inco herent and
unable t o remember where she was co ming fro m o r t he medicine she had

t aken. She had also lo st t h e n o r mal use o f her physical facult ies: she

st aggered, co uld no t keep her balance when she st epped o ut o f h er car,
and failed bo t h o f the field so briet y t est s
. Appellant arg ues that t he

t est imo n y fro m Officer Bo unds describin g t his evidence was weak because
he lacked credibilit y, but t he habeas co urt r eject ed that argument

. T he
undisclo sed evidence impeaching Go o d en wo uld no t have impeached t he

t est imo n y describing Appellant ’s int oxicat ed st at e.
T h e habeas co urt ’s findings o f f act regarding Go o den’s analysis and

t est imo n y also suppo rt t he co nclusio n that t he undisclo sed evidence was

no t m at erial t o t he jury’s s pecial-issue finding t hat Appellant ’ s BAC was
0.15 o r mo re. First , t he habeas co urt f o und t hat t h ere was no evidence

o f any erro r in t he labeling o f Appellant ’s blo o d o r Go o d e n’s analysis o fDI AMOND — 22

Appe l l a nt ’ s blo o d. T his finding is s uppo rt ed by t he reco rd. Appellant ’s
blo o d vials were labeled w it h t he o fficer’s init ials, Appellant ’s name, and

t he case number. T he vials were placed int o an envelo pe labeled wit h Appellant ’s name and co rrect case n umber, sealed wit h t ape, a n d
delivered t o a secure lo ckbo x. Go o den ret rieved t he envelo pe, which
sho wed no signs o f t ampering. Prio r t o t est ing Appellant ’s blo o d, Go o den
verified t hat t he name o n t he envelo pe mat ched t he name o n t he blo o d
vials inside; it was Appellant ’s. Go o den fo llo w e d all o f t he lab’s st andard

o p erat ing pro cedures when analyzing Appellant ’s b lo od. Her analysis o f Appellant ’s blo o d sample revealed a blo o d alco ho l level o f 0.193.

Mo reo ver, Go o den’s erro r in t he Hurt ado case was a pro t o co l erro r regarding t he c e rt ifi c a t i o n o f t he repo rt as co mplet e. I t was no t a mislabeling o r analysis erro r. T he o f f icer, no t Go o den, had mislabeled t he
submi s s i o n fo rm acco m panying t he blo o d evidence. T he co rrect ness o f

Go o d en’ s a n a l y s is of t h at evidence in t he Hurt ado case w as n ever in
quest io n. Finally, Go o d en’s c ert ificat io n o nly mo ved t h e repo rt t o t he

next s t age ; t h e repo rt st ill had t o b e administ rat ively and t echnically reviewed, and t hen appro ved, befo re it was released.

Furt hermo re, t he h abeas co urt , as t he exclusive j udge o f t he
credibilit y o f t he wit nesses, det ermined t hat Arno ld’s descript io n of event sDI AMOND — 23

and his views regarding Go o den’s perfo rmance were no t credible. 4 6 T he
habeas co urt r eject ed Arno ld’s pu rpo rt ed reaso ns f or remo ving Go o den
fro m casewo rk, including his alleged c o ncerns abo u t her k no wledge base
and inabilit y t o answer basic quest io ns. I nst ead, it fo und t hat at t he t ime

o f Appellant ’s t rial Go o den “ had s imply been r emo ved to fo cus so lely o n
do cument ing t h e issues surro unding an unr e l at ed mislabeled blo o d
case.” 4 7 T h e habeas co urt also reject ed Arno ld’s c haract erizat io n o f

Go o d en’s wo rk st at us. I t fo und Arno ld’s use o f t he t erm “ suspended” o r

“ under suspensio n” t o d escribe Go oden’s wo rk st at us at t h e t ime o f Appellant ’s t rial “ suspect and unpersuasive.”

T h e habeas co urt ’s c redibilit y assessment o f Arno ld, and t he findings
based upo n it , are s uppo r t e d by t he reco rd. 4 8 In it s repo rt int ro duced at

t he hearing o n t he habeas a p plicat io n, t h e T FSC fo und Arno ld

46 Se e E x par te Mowbr

ay , 943 S.W.2d 461, 465 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 1996) (“Vi r tu al l y e ve r y fact f i n di n g i n vol ve s a cr e di bi l i ty de te r mi n ati on
. We h ave r e pe ate dl y r e cogn i z e d th at th e fact fi n de r i s th e e xcl u s i ve j u dge of th e cr e di bi l i ty of th e wi tn e sse s.”). Be cau se th e h abe as j u dge h e r e pe r so n a l l y pr e si de d ove r both Appe l l an t’s tr i al an d th e h abe as pr oce e di ng, h e was we l l -posi ti on e d to make th i s cr e di bi l i ty de ci si o n
. Se e E x par te W

h e e le r , 203 S.W.3d at 325–26.

47 Th i s i s th e on l y fact fi n di ng ch al l e n ge d on appe al . Appe l l an t doe s n ot ch al l e n ge th e h abe as cou r t’s oth e r fi n di n gs—i n cl u di n g th ose de tai l i n g th e e ve n ts su r r ou ndi n g th e Hu r tado r e por t, th e r e por ts of th e OI G an d TFSC, an d cor r e spon de n ce be twe e n Ar nol d an d Goode n
.

48 Se e E x par te M owbr

ay , 943 S.W.2d at 465 (“I n h abe as h e ar i n gs, th e j u dge de te r mi n e s th e cr e di bi l i ty of th e wi tn e sse s an d i f th e h abe as j u dge ’s fi n di n gs of fact ar e s u ppor te d by th e r e cor d, th e y sh ou l d be acce pte d by th i s Cou r t.”).DI AMOND — 24

pro fessio nally negligent , no t Go oden. 4 9 All int erviewees part icipat ing in

t he T FSC’s invest igat io n believed Go oden t o be a co mpet ent analyst who

was unfairly b lamed fo r t h e r e po rt ing erro r in t he Hurt ado case. I n

co nt rast , Arno ld pro vided inco nsist ent explanat io ns regarding why

Go o d en was remo ved fro m casewo rk.

Given t h e h abeas co urt ’s findings o f fact and det erminat io ns o f
credibilit y, we agree wit h t h e St at e t hat t he u ndisclo sed e vidence wo uld

no t have been m at erial impeachment evidence against Go oden sufficient

t o undermine her test imo ny regarding t he accuracy o f Appellant ’s blo o d
result s. 5 0 Go o den’s cer t ificat io n o f t he H urt ado r epo rt w as a o ne-t ime
incident in an unrelat ed case. 5 1 Appellant ’ s blo o d sample and subsequent

repo rt co nt ained no l a b eling erro rs. And Go o den’s t empo rary remo val
fro m casewo rk at t he t ime o f Appellant ’s t rial do es no t overco m e t he fact

t hat there was no evidence o f any erro r in Go oden’s ana l ysis o f Appellant ’s blo o d. Finally, Arno ld’s c laims regarding his co ncerns abo ut

49 Agai n , Appe l l an t compl ai n s abou t Goode n ’s ce r ti fi cati on e r r or , n ot Ar n ol d’s, wh o di d n ot te sti fy at Appe l l an t’s tr i al

.

50 C f. E x par te Hobbs , 393 S.W.3d 780, 781 ( T e x
. C r i m
. App. 2013) (pe r cu r i am) (con cl udi n g th at th e l ab te c hn i c i a n ’s acti o n s we r e u nr e l i abl e be cau se h e had n ot fol l owe d acce pte d stan dar ds wh e n an al y z i n g th e e vi de n ce , wh i c h r e su l te d i n a du e pr o ce ss vi ol ati on ).

51 Se e E x par te Coty , 418 S.W.3d 597 (Te x. C r i m. App

. 2 0 1 4 ) ( h ol d i ng th at i t i s n ot appr o pr i ate to pr e su me fal si ty an d mate r i al i ty i n e v e r y case o n wh i ch a for e n si c sci e n ti st, wh o h as be e n fou n d to h ave c ommi tte d i n te nti on al mi s con du ct i n mor e th an on e case , h as wor ke d).DI AMOND — 25

Go o d en’s k no wledge base were no t credible and t he r ef o re do no t
undermine t he reliabilit y o f her t est imo ny t hat Appellant ’s B A C was
0.193. What ever impeachment value t his new info rmat io n had t o
undermine Go o den’s t est imo ny, it was nevert heless no t mat erial.

We agree wit h the St at e that t he co urt o f appeals placed t o o much weight o n Arno ld’s t est imo ny in it s analysis e ven tho u gh t he habeas co urt
fo und Arno ld lacked credibilit y. While t he co urt o f appeals did no t have

t o d efer t o t he habeas c o urt ’s c o nclusio n regarding t h e legal
det erminat io n of mat erialit y, t he fact u al finding s u nderlying t h at legal

co nclusio n suppo rt the habeas co urt ’s denial of relief. Viewing t he habeas

co urt ’s f act ual findings wit h t he pro p er degree o f deference, we ho ld t hat

t he h abeas co urt p ro perly co ncl u d e d t hat Appellant failed t o carry her
burden t o est ablish t hat t he undisclo s ed evidence was mat e rial.

C ON CLUSION
Based upo n t he habeas c o urt ’s fact ual findings, the u ndisclo sed
evidence at issue in this case wa s no t mat erial. Go o den’s analysis and

t e s t i mo ny in Appellant ’s c ase was pro per and r eliable. Her erro r in t he
unrelat ed case had t o do wit h an impro per cert ificat io n o f a repo rt rat her

t han a failure t o cat ch a m islabeling o f a b l o o d sample. And t here was

o v erwhelming evidence o f Appellant ’s int o xicat io n t o sust ain Appellant ’sDI AMOND — 26

co nvict io n fo r Class A misdemeano r D WI

. Co n sequent ly, we r everse t he judgment o f t he co u r t o f appeals and affirm t he habeas co u rt ’s ruling.

Delivered: December 16, 2020
Publish