i 

No. WR-82,970-01

In the 

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 

at Austin 



Cause No. 1445686-A 

In the 208th District Court 

of Harris County, Texas 



Ex parte MICHAEL JAMES WILLIAMS 



STATE’S BRIEF 



Devon Anderson 

District Attorney 

Harris County, Texas 

Inger H. Chandler 

Assistant District Attorney 

Harris County, Texas 

State Bar No. 24041051 

1201 Franklin, Suite 600 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: 713-755-1570 

Fax No.: 713-368-9275 

Chandler_Inger@dao.hctx.net 

Counsel for The State of Texas 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ONLY IF REQUESTED BY APPLICANT 

WR-82,970-01

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 6/30/2015 12:10:28 PM

Accepted 6/30/2015 12:14:24 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
ii

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 38.2(a), a complete list of the names of all 

interested parties is provided below so that the members of this Honorable Court 

may at once determine whether they are disqualified to serve or should recuse 

themselves from participating in the decision of the case.

Counsel for the State:

Devon Anderson – District Attorney of Harris County

Inger H. Chandler – Assistant District Attorney on appeal

Greg Houlton – Assistant District Attorney at trial

Applicant:

Michael James Williams

Counsel for Applicant:

Nicolas Hughes – Counsel on appeal

Jaime Garcia Acosta – Counsel at trial

Trial Judge:

Hon. Denise Collins – Presiding Judge
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ........................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................... iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................iv

STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................1

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ...............................................1

ISSUE PRESENTED.................................................................................................2

STATEMENT OF THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY...............................................2

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................3

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................5

ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................6

The applicant’s plea of guilty to the felony offense of possession of a 

controlled substance was involuntary when the substances seized and 

tested by the Houston Forensic Science Center contained illicit 

materials other than those alleged in the charging instrument and 

belonging to a different penalty group. ...........................................................6

In the narrowly-tailored circumstance of pre-indictment pleas of 

guilty to drug possession charges, if a variance between the illicit 

substance alleged in the charging instrument and the results of a 

confirmatory laboratory report result in a conviction under an 

incorrect statute, habeas relief must be granted to maintain the 

integrity of the conviction .............................................................................12

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..........................................................................................13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................14

APPENDIX..............................................................................................................15
iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed. 215 (1963) .....................2

Curtis v. State, 548 S.W.2d 57 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977)........................................... 10

Ex parte Bisor, No. WR-82,382-01, 2014 WL 6789865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

(not designated for publication)...............................................................................12

Ex parte Lucas, No. WR-82,306-01, 2014 WL 6789947 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

(not designated for publication)...............................................................................12

Ex parte Mable, 443 S.W.3d 129 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014) .......................................12

Ex parte Mayo, No. WR-82,047-01, 2014 WL 6788221 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

(not designated for publication)...............................................................................12

Ex parte Williams, No. WR-82,307-01, 2014 WL 6788359 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

(not designated for publication)...............................................................................12

Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672–73 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993)......................11

Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442, 446 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981) ...............................11

Statutes

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07 ...........................................................................16

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.102............................................................. 7, 9

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.103..................................................................5

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.115..................................................................5

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.116..................................................................5

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 481.101-481.105 .................................................7

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 481.112-481.118 .................................................7
1

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

The State of Texas, by and through the undersigned Harris County Assistant 

District Attorney, files its brief in response to the Court of Criminal Appeals’ filing 

and setting for submission the issue of whether the applicant’s plea of guilty to the 

felony offense of possession of a controlled substance was involuntary when the 

substances seized and tested contained illicit materials other than those alleged;

and the State would show the following:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case involves an application for writ of habeas corpus filed by the 

applicant, Michael James Williams, pursuant to TEX. CODE OF CRIM. PROC. art. 

11.07. The applicant is seeking habeas relief from his plea of guilty and 

subsequent felony conviction for the offense of possession of a controlled 

substance in cause number 1445686 (the primary case).

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 39, the State requests oral argument only if oral 

argument is requested by the applicant.
2

ISSUE PRESENTED

(1) Whether the applicant’s plea of guilty to the felony offense of possession of 

a controlled substance was involuntary when the substances seized and 

tested contained illicit materials other than those alleged.

STATEMENT OF THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 2, 2014, the applicant entered a plea of guilty to the primary 

case and was convicted of the third-degree felony offense of possession of a 

penalty group two controlled substance, namely, 3,4-methylenedioxy 

methamphetamine1(more than one and less than four grams). Pursuant to a plea 

bargain agreement, the applicant was sentenced by the trial court to two (2) years 

in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Institutional Division. 

On January 23, 2015, the State received a copy of the laboratory report 

associated with the applicant’s disposed case from the Houston Forensic Science 

Center. The laboratory report indicated that the controlled substance possessed by 

the applicant was methamphetamine, not 3,4-methylenedioxy methamphetamine, 

as alleged in the criminal complaint and judgment. The State immediately 

forwarded the laboratory report to the Harris County Public Defender’s Office,

pursuant to its continuing obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady 

v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed. 215 (1963).

 

1 Commonly known as “ecstasy” (in pill form) or “molly” (in a crystalline powder form).
3

On February 19, 2015, the applicant, represented by Harris County Assistant 

Public Defender Nicholas Hughes, filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, 

cause number 1445686-A. On February 27, 2015, the trial court signed the parties’ 

Agreed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommended that relief be 

granted in the applicant’s case.

On April 22, 2015, the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the application 

for further briefing on the legal issues presented by the application. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On October 20, 2014, the applicant was arrested and charged with the 

second-degree felony offense of possession of a penalty group one controlled 

substance, namely, cocaine (weighing more than 4 and less than 200 grams), in 

cause number 1445685, and the third-degree felony offense of possession of a 

penalty group two controlled substance, namely, 3,4-methylenedioxy 

methamphetamine (weighing more than one and less than four grams), in cause 

number 1445686 (the primary case). See Appendix, State’s Exhibit A & B, 

Criminal Complaints, cause nos. 1445685 and 1445686, respectively.

2

 

2

The applicant’s co-defendant, Charles Lamont Waller, was arrested and charged with the 

second-degree felony offense of possession of a penalty group one controlled substance, namely, 

cocaine (more than four and less than two hundred grams), in cause number 1445687, and the 

third-degree felony offense of possession of a penalty group two controlled substance, namely, 
4

On December 2, 2014, the applicant waived indictment in the primary case 

and entered into a plea agreement with the State of Texas. See February 27, 2015, 

Court’s Findings of fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, cause no. 1445686-A. 

After a plea of guilty, the applicant was sentenced by the trial court to two (2) 

years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Institutional Division. See 

Appendix, State’s Exhibit C, Judgment of Conviction by Court – Waiver of Jury 

Trial, cause no. 1445686. As part of the applicant’s plea bargain agreement, cause 

number 1445685 was dismissed on motion of the State.3 See Appendix, State’s 

Exhibit D, Motion to Dismiss, cause no. 1445685. 

On January 23, 2015, nearly two months after the applicant’s plea, the State 

received a copy of the laboratory report associated with the applicant’s cases from 

the Houston Forensic Science Center. See Appendix, State’s Exhibit E, Laboratory 

Report #1, Houston Forensic Science Center. The laboratory report indicated that 

the controlled substances possessed by the applicant were methamphetamine (1.48 

grams) and cocaine (6.99 grams), not 3,4-methylenedioxy methamphetamine and 

cocaine as alleged in the criminal complaints. See Appendix, State’s Exhibits A, B

and E. The State immediately forwarded the laboratory report to the Harris 

County Public Defender’s Office pursuant to its continuing obligation to disclose 

 

3,4-methylenedioxy methamphetamine (more than one and less than four grams), in cause 

number 1445688.

3

The applicant’s co-defendant, Charles Lamont Waller, received an identical plea bargain 

agreement.
5

exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 

L.Ed. 215 (1963).

4

 See Appendix, State’s Exhibit F, E-mail correspondence 

between Harris County District Attorney’s Office and Harris County Public 

Defender’s Office dated January 23, 2015.

On February 19, 2015, the applicant, represented by Harris County Assistant 

Public Defender Nicholas Hughes, filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, 

cause number 1445686-A, alleging that the applicant’s plea was involuntary and 

that his conviction violates due process. See applicant’s writ.

Based on the State’s belief that the applicant’s conviction in the primary 

case was, in fact, erroneous, the State joined the applicant in filing Agreed 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On February 27, 2015, the trial court 

signed the parties’ agreed findings and recommended that relief be granted in the 

applicant’s case. See February 27, 2015, Court’s Findings of fact, Conclusions of 

Law, and Order, cause no. 1445686-A.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The applicant’s plea of guilty to the third-degree felony offense of 

possession of a controlled substance was involuntary when the substances seized 

and tested by the Houston Forensic Science Center contained illicit materials other 

 

4

The applicant’s co-defendant, Charles Lamont Waller, has a pending writ of habeas corpus on 

this identical issue, No. WR-83,098-01.
6

than those alleged in the charging instrument and belonging to a different penalty 

group. The applicant pled guilty to possessing 3,4-methylenedioxy 

methamphetamine, a penalty group two controlled substance, when, in fact, he 

possessed methamphetamine, a penalty group one controlled substance. Due to the

categorizing of drug possession offenses by penalty group under the Texas 

Controlled Substances Act (Chapter 481, TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE), and the 

potentially differing punishment ranges associated with each penalty group, the 

State believes that the applicant’s conviction in the primary case was, in fact, 

erroneous.

In the narrowly-tailored circumstance of pre-indictment pleas of guilty to 

drug possession charges, if a variance is discovered between the illicit substance

alleged in the charging instrument and the results of a confirmatory laboratory 

report, and that variance results in a conviction under an incorrect statute, habeas 

relief must be granted to maintain the integrity of the conviction. The State’s duty 

to seek justice requires that known errors in convictions be corrected as

expeditiously as possible.

ARGUMENT

THE APPLICANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE FELONY OFFENSE OF 

POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS INVOLUNTARY 

WHEN THE SUBSTANCES SEIZED AND TESTED BY THE HOUSTON 

FORENSIC SCIENCE CENTER CONTAINED ILLICIT MATERIALS OTHER 

THAN THOSE ALLEGED IN THE CHARGING INSTRUMENT AND 

BELONGING TO A DIFFERENT PENALTY GROUP.
7

Chapter 481 of the TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE sets out the Texas 

Controlled Substances Act. The act categorizes controlled substances by penalty 

group. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 481.101-481.105. Within each 

penalty group, the act further categorizes each penalty group by degree of offense 

and punishment range. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 481.112-481.118.

In cause number 1445685, the applicant was arrested and charged – with 

specificity – with possessing cocaine, a penalty group one controlled substance. 

See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.102(3)(d). No other penalty group in the 

Texas Controlled Substances Act contains cocaine. The weight of the cocaine was 

between 4 and 200 grams; thus, the applicant was charged with the second-degree 

felony offense of possession of a controlled substance. See TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE § 481.115(d).

Likewise, in cause number 1445686, the applicant was arrested and charged

– with specificity – with possessing 3,4-methylenedioxy methamphetamine, a 

penalty group two controlled substance. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 

481.103(1). No other penalty group in the Texas Controlled Substances Act 

contains 3,4-methylenedioxy methamphetamine. The weight of the 3,4-

methylenedioxy methamphetamine was between 1 and 4 grams; thus, the applicant 

was charged with the third-degree felony offense of possession of a controlled 

substance. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.116(c).
8

Because the applicant was charged with possessing two different controlled 

substances that belong to two different penalty groups, the applicant was charged 

with two separate offenses. Controlled substance offenses not only have 

potentially different punishment ranges based on the penalty group to which they 

are assigned, but at the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, they are further 

categorized by separate and distinct NCIC/TCIC codes for crime reporting 

purposes:

Possession of PG 1 less than 1 gram – State Jail

1-4 grams – 3

rd Degree

4-200 grams – 2

nd Degree

200-400 grams – 1

st Degree

>400 grams – 1

st Degree (10yr min)

5599 04

5599 05

5599 06

5599 07

3599 03

Possession of PG 2 less than 1 gram – State Jail

1-4 grams – 3

rd Degree

4-400 grams – 2

nd Degree

>400 – 1

st Degree

5599 08

5599 09

5599 10

3599 06

Possession of PG 3 less than 28 grams – Class A Misd.

28-200 grams – 3

rd Degree

200-400 grams – 2

nd Degree

>400 grams – 1

st Degree

5599 11

5599 12

5599 13

3599 09

Possession of PG 4 less than 28 grams – Class B Misd.

28-200 grams – 3

rd Degree

200-400 grams – 2

nd Degree

>400 grams – 1

st Degree

5599 14

5599 15

5599 16

3599 12

See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 481.112-481.118. 

Therefore, the applicant was charged in cause number 1445685 with the 

second-degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, namely, 

cocaine, with a distinctive NCIC code of 5599 06. See Appendix, State’s Exhibit 
9

A. He was further charged in cause number 1445686 with the third-degree felony 

offense of possession of a controlled substance, namely, 3,4-methylenedioxy 

methamphetamine, with a distinctive NCIC code of 5599 09. See Appendix, 

State’s Exhibit B. 

On December 2, 2014, on his second court appearance and without the 

benefit of the results of the confirmatory laboratory testing, the applicant waived 

indictment in the primary case and entered into a plea agreement with the State of 

Texas. See February 27, 2015, Court’s Findings of fact, Conclusions of Law, and 

Order, cause no. 1445686-A. After a plea of guilty, the applicant was sentenced by 

the trial court to two (2) years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice –

Institutional Division. See Appendix, State’s Exhibit C.

On January 23, 2015, nearly two months after the applicant’s plea, the State 

received a copy of the laboratory report associated with the applicant’s cases from 

the Houston Forensic Science Center. See Appendix, State’s Exhibit E. The 

laboratory report indicated that the controlled substances possessed by the 

applicant were cocaine (6.99 grams) and methamphetamine (1.48 grams), not 

cocaine and 3,4-methylenedioxy methamphetamine as alleged in the criminal 

complaints. See Appendix, State’s Exhibits A, B and E. Methamphetamine is a 

penalty group one controlled substance. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 
10

481.102(6). No other penalty group in the Texas Controlled Substances Act 

contains methamphetamine.

It is well established that a positive chemical field test, and an officer’s 

subsequent testimony about the result of said field test, is insufficient evidence to 

support a conviction. See Curtis v. State, 548 S.W.2d 57, 59 (Tex.Crim.App.

1977). In the applicant’s case, the only evidence that he was privy to at the time of 

his plea was the result of the chemical field test. Because he was unaware that the 

confirmatory testing would yield a different result, his plea of guilty to possessing 

3,4-methylenedioxy methamphetamine was unknowing and involuntary. Had the 

parties known of the variance at the time of the applicant’s plea, the case could 

have been refiled by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office to reflect the 

correct controlled substance, the correct penalty group, and the correct NCIC code.

It is as simple and as complicated as this: the applicant is not now, nor has 

he ever been, guilty of possessing 3,4-methylenedioxy methamphetamine. Had the 

State proceeded to trial without a confirmatory laboratory report, the jury would 

have been instructed to acquit the applicant. Id. Had the State proceeded to trial 

with a confirmatory laboratory report indicating methamphetamine, but had not 

refiled (or at least fully and properly amended) the charging instrument, the jury 

would have been instructed to acquit the applicant if the State did not prove 
11

beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicant had possessed 3,4-methylenedioxy 

methamphetamine. Again, the jury would have had no choice but to acquit.

The undersigned Assistant District Attorney has found no indication, neither 

in case law nor statute, that possession of 3,4-methylenedioxy methamphetamine is 

a lesser-included offense of possession of methamphetamine. As this Court is 

aware, a two-part test is used to determine whether a lesser-included offense may 

be submitted to a jury. Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672–73 (Tex.Crim.App.

1993). First, the lesser offense must be included within the proof necessary to 

establish the offense charged. Id. Second, some evidence must exist in the record 

that would permit a jury to rationally find that if the applicant is guilty, he is guilty 

only of the lesser offense. Rousseau, 855 S.W.2d at 672–73; Royster v. State, 622 

S.W.2d 442, 446 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981). In the applicant’s case, it cannot be said 

that possession of 3,4-methylenedioxy methamphetamine is included within the 

proof necessary to establish the offense of possession of methamphetamine. If 

anything, the opposite may be true.

Simply put, the applicant stands convicted of the wrong offense and, as a 

result, has asserted a claim that his plea was unknowing and involuntary. Because 

the evidence in possession of the State does not support the applicant’s conviction, 

the State agrees that the applicant is entitled to relief.
12

IN THE NARROWLY-TAILORED CIRCUMSTANCE OF PRE-INDICTMENT 

PLEAS OF GUILTY TO DRUG POSSESSION CHARGES, IF A VARIANCE 

BETWEEN THE ILLICIT SUBSTANCE ALLEGED IN THE CHARGING 

INSTRUMENT AND THE RESULTS OF A CONFIRMATORY LABORATORY 

REPORT RESULTED IN A CONVICTION UNDER AN INCORRECT 

STATUTE, HABEAS RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED TO MAINTAIN THE 

INTEGRITY OF THE CONVICTION.

The State has a vested interest in maintaining the integrity of their 

convictions and the accuracy of their crime reporting. Convictions that are “close 

enough” do not help the State fulfill those interests. This Court has previously held 

that confirmatory laboratory test results that show no illicit substances render a 

guilty plea unknowing and involuntary. See Ex parte Mable, 443 S.W.3d 129 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Additionally, this court has cited Mable in the granting 

habeas relief in other applications involving 3,4-methylenedioxy 

methamphetamine and methamphetamine. See Ex parte Lucas, No. WR-82,306-

01, 2014 WL 6789947 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)(not designated for publication); see 

also Ex parte Mayo, No. WR-82,047-01, 2014 WL 6788221 (Tex. Crim. App.

2014)(not designated for publication); see also Ex parte Williams, No. WR-82,307-

01, 2014 WL 6788359 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)(not designated for publication); see 

also Ex parte Bisor, No. WR-82,382-01, 2014 WL 6789865 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014)(not designated for publication).

This Court should hold that when variances occur between the controlled 

substance alleged in a charging instrument and the confirmatory laboratory report, 
13

resulting in a conviction under an inaccurate statutory provision, habeas relief 

should be granted to afford the parties the opportunity to correct the error in a 

timely manner.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Based on the foregoing, the State respectfully requests that this Court grant

the application for writ of habeas corpus. 

/ s / Inger H. Chandler

INGER H. CHANDLER

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 755-1570

(713) 368-9275 (telecopier)

State Bar No. 24041051
14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been served on 

the following counsel of record:

Mr. Nicolas Hughes

Harris County Public Defender’s Office

1201 Franklin Street, 13thFloor

Houston, TX 77002

Date: June 23, 2015

/ s / Inger H. Chandler

INGER H. CHANDLER

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

This document complies with the typeface requirements of TEX. R. APP.

PROC. 9.4(e) because it has been prepared in a conventional typeface no smaller 

than 14-point for text and 12-point for footnotes. This document also complies 

with the page and word count limitations of TEX. R. APP. PROC. 9.4(I), if 

applicable, because it contains 2289 words excluding portions not to be counted 

under TEX. R. APP. PROC. 9.4(I)(1).

/ s / Inger H. Chandler

INGER H. CHANDLER
15

APPENDIX