Court Opinion

ID: 9372239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-19 23:11:28.091748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:33.911499
License: Public Domain

In the Court of Criminal
           Appeals of Texas
                           ══════════
                          No. WR-94,425-01
                           ══════════

             EX PARTE JAMES HENRY NOLAN, III,
                              Applicant
   ═══════════════════════════════════════
         On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
    Cause No. 22-CR-2706-83-1 in the 122nd District Court
                  From Galveston County
   ═══════════════════════════════════════

      YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion.

      Applicant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and
was sentenced to one year imprisonment. After his plea, the Texas
Department of Public Safety crime lab analyzed the substance possessed
by Applicant. The lab issued a report showing that the substance did not
actually contain any controlled substances. In this application for writ
of habeas corpus, Applicant contends that his guilty plea was
                                                             NOLAN – 2

involuntary, because at the time he pled guilty, all parties involved
incorrectly believed that Applicant possessed a controlled substance.
The Court agrees and grants relief under Ex parte Mable, 443 S.W.3d
129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
      For reasons I have previously stated in opinions such as my
concurring opinion in Ex parte Warfield, 618 S.W.3d 69, 72–75 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2021), and my concurring opinion in Ex parte Ohlemacher,
No. WR-93,821-01, 2023 WL 1424751, at *1–2 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 1,
2023), I disagree that Applicant’s guilty plea was involuntary but
nevertheless agree that Applicant is entitled to relief. Additionally, I
continue to believe that this Court should overrule Mable.
      With these comments, I concur in the result.

FILED:                                 February 15, 2023
DO NOT PUBLISH