Ex parte Leroy Coty (Original)
Annotate this Case
Jonathan Salvador was a laboratory technician at the Houston Police Department's Crime Lab Division. It was discovered that during his six-year tenure, he committed professional misconduct by using evidence in one case to support the evidence in another. In the wake of this situation, DPS notified the prosecuting attorneys, law-enforcement agencies and other affected persons. Applications for writs of habeas corpus based on Salvador's actions followed. Applicant Leroy Coty was charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance weighing at least 400 grams. He pled guilty to the lesser-included offense of possession of a controlled substance, and per his plea-bargain agreement and was sentenced to 10 years' confinement. He waived his right to appeal as part of the bargain, however still filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that, due to Salvador's misconduct and the fact that the evidence was in the sole custody of Salvador for a period of time, he was entitled to relief. The habeas court did not hold an evidentiary hearing because the judge correctly concluded that his recommendation to grant relief was "mandated due to the Court of Criminal Appeals' holding in [Hobbs] . . . ." However, the trial court made other conclusions of law, including that "[c]ompromises in a chain of custody generally necessitate[d] the presentation of evidence involving tampering or fraud specific to the exhibit in question[,]" and that "[t]he Court concludes that there is no specific evidence that [Salvador] confused, comingled, or compromised the test results . . . , or that [Salvador's] analysis of Applicant's drug exhibit was unreliable." Despite those conclusions, the habeas court recommended that the Court of Criminal Appeals grant relief based on the Court of Criminal Appeals' precedent. Finding that additional findings of fact were required for the Court's decision in this matter, the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded this case back to the habeas court for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.