IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NOS. WR-91,755-01 AND WR-91,755-02
EX PARTE LOUIE ROLAND GARCIA, Applicant
ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NOS. 2017CR12158-W1 AND 2018CR3048-W1
IN THE 226TH DISTRICT COURT FROM BEXAR COUNTY
Per curiam. YEARY , J., filed a dissenting opinion.
OPINION
Applicant pleaded guilty to two charges of possession of a controlled substance arising from
separate incidents, and was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment in each case, to run concurrently.
He did not appeal his convictions. Applicant filed these applications for writs of habeas corpus in the
county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded them to this Court. See TEX . CODE CRIM .
PROC . art. 11.07.
In the -01 case, Applicant and two co-defendants were arrested after law enforcement
executed a search warrant at a residence and drugs were found. Applicant did not live at the
residence, but was present at the time of the search. The search was based on information supplied
by a confidential informant. Applicant and his co-defendants maintained that the person who they
2
believed to be the confidential informant planted the drugs just before the search. Just before law
enforcement arrived, an individual came to the house with his child. He asked to use the restroom
and left a short time later. During the search that law enforcement conducted later that day, a large
quantity of narcotics was discovered in a loose board in the bathroom as well as outside on the front
porch, where Applicant’s tools and phone were located. Smaller quantities of drugs and
paraphernalia were also found around the house and in one co-defendant's purse. When Applicant
was moved from one room of the residence to another, a bag containing methamphetamine was found
on the floor near his feet. The room had apparently been searched and “cleared” before Applicant
was placed in it, and the bag of methamphetamine was not found until after he had been sitting there.
Approximately two years after Applicant pleaded guilty to the charges, the State learned that
the confidential informant who provided the information relied on for a search warrant in this case
is unreliable and planted evidence in a house in an unrelated case. The State promptly disclosed this
fact to Applicant.
Applicant now contends that the State committed a Brady violation, that he was denied due
process because the State relied on false evidence, that his plea was involuntary, and that he is
actually innocent. This Court remanded this matter to the trial court to obtain findings of fact and
conclusions of law addressing Applicant’s actual innocence claim. Specifically, this Court asked for
findings as to whether Applicant possessed quantities of methamphetamine that were not part of the
drugs allegedly planted by the confidential informant in this case, and if so, whether Applicant
committed a lesser-included offense of the charges set out in the indictment and whether he has
established that he is actually innocent. See State v. Wilson, 324 S.W.3d 595, 598 (Tex. Crim. App.
3
2010) ("We hold that the term ‘actual innocence' shall apply, in Texas state cases, only in
circumstances in which an accused did not, in fact, commit the charged offense or any of the
lesser-included offenses.").
The trial court held a habeas hearing at which it heard arguments from the parties. As it did
before remand, the trial court recommends that relief be granted on the basis of actual innocence,
because but for the false information provided by the confidential informant, the State would not have
been able to conduct a valid search, and would not have brought any charges at all. We disagree.
Although the “newly-discovered” evidence does cast doubt on the validity of the search warrant, and
does support Applicant’s claim that the confidential informant planted the drugs that were found in
the bathroom and in a bank bag found outside the house, Applicant has not demonstrated that he did
not commit a lesser-included offense by possessing the drugs not alleged to have been planted by the
confidential informant. Therefore, he does not qualify for relief on the basis of actual innocence.
Nor has Applicant demonstrated that the State committed a Brady violation, because the State
disclosed the information about the unreliability of the confidential informant to Applicant as soon
as it came to light, which was after his plea. Applicant has not demonstrated that his conviction was
based on false testimony, because he pleaded guilty to the charges, and the State did not present
testimony from the confidential informant.
However, the trial court’s recommendation to grant relief on the basis of an involuntary plea
is supported by the record. If Applicant had been aware that the information provided by the
confidential informant used to obtain the search warrant that led to the discovery of the drugs was
unreliable, it is likely that he would not have pleaded guilty to the charges. Although Applicant
lacked standing to challenge the search of the house, the State concedes that no search would have
4
been conducted and no charges would have been brought but for the false information provided by
the confidential informant.
In the -02 application, Applicant alleges that his pleas to the -01 and -02 charges were part
of a “package” plea agreement, and that the invalidation of his plea to the -01 charges also renders
his plea to the -02 charges invalid. This claim is supported by the record.
Relief is granted. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). The judgments in cause
numbers 2017CR12157 and 2018CR3048 in the 226th District Court of Bexar County are set aside,
and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Bexar County to answer the charges as
set out in the indictments. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within ten days
from the date of this Court’s mandate.
Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional
Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
Delivered: June 30, 2021
Do not publish