The Case of Carlos Lozano — Self-Defense Denied

Case Summary

What Happened

Carlos Lozano is a U.S. citizen, lifelong El Paso resident, and certified Master Mechanic. Before his incarceration, he was the sole caregiver for his disabled mother, who has since passed away while he remains imprisoned. He has no prior criminal history. In the early morning hours of September 26, 2015, Lozano was in his truck in the parking lot outside Pockets Billiards and Fun on N. Mesa Street in El Paso, Texas. A group of people in the parking lot confronted Lozano after a woman nearly walked in front of his moving vehicle. During the confrontation, Jorge Arturo Hinojos threw a full beer can through the open passenger-side window of Lozano's truck, where it exploded, spraying beer throughout the vehicle. Lozano retrieved a firearm. Hinojos then ran around the truck and punched Lozano through the open driver-side window. Lozano turned and shot Hinojos three times, killing him.

Lozano was indicted for murder on January 21, 2016, in El Paso County. At trial, the jury was instructed on self-defense, including provisions related to the Castle Doctrine and the presumption of reasonableness when someone unlawfully enters an occupied vehicle with force. However, the jury charge contained erroneous "duty to retreat" language — instructions that had been removed from Texas law in 2007. The jury convicted Lozano and the trial court sentenced him to 25 years' confinement. Notably, during deliberations the jury sent a note to the judge asking about the presumption of reasonableness and what it means to "enter" a vehicle — indicating they were actively weighing the self-defense issue.

On direct appeal, the Eighth Court of Appeals in El Paso held that the erroneous duty-to-retreat instructions caused Lozano egregious harm and reversed his conviction, ordering a new trial. But the State filed a Petition for Discretionary Review (PDR) with the Court of Criminal Appeals and, for the first time, argued an entirely new theory: that Lozano was never entitled to self-defense instructions at all because there was no evidence of his "subjective belief" that deadly force was immediately necessary. This theory was never raised at trial, never argued to the jury, and was not the basis of the conviction. The CCA adopted this new theory in a unanimous opinion delivered October 6, 2021, reversed the Eighth Court of Appeals, and affirmed Lozano's conviction.

An application for writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed and is currently pending before the Court of Criminal Appeals. The writ challenges the CCA's adoption of the State's new legal theory, the destruction of critical physical evidence — the truck itself — and raises additional claims related to the fundamental fairness of the proceedings.

Case at a Glance

Full Name: Carlos Lozano
TDCJ Number: #02156992
Offense of Conviction: Murder (Tex. Penal Code § 19.02)
County: El Paso County, Texas
Sentence: 25 years
Trial Court: 384th Judicial District Court
Trial Judge: Hon. Patrick M. Garcia
Cause No.: 2016-0D-00209
CCA Case No. (PDR): PD-1319-19
8th Ct. App. No.: 08-17-00251-CR
CCA Writ No.: WR-96,918-01
Current Status: 11.07 Writ Pending — WR-96,918-01

Critical Evidence

The Truck: Key Evidence Spoliated

Carlos Lozano's truck was the scene of the shooting and the single most important piece of physical evidence in his self-defense case. It contained blood splatter evidence relevant to the extent of the attack and whether Hinojos had entered the vehicle. Despite the State's own assertions that blood evidence testing was needed, the truck was held for 23 months, no DNA testing was ever performed, the windows were left down at the police impound allowing the blood evidence to be destroyed by the elements, and the truck was ultimately released to a bank by court order on December 19, 2017 — just three months after conviction — over Lozano's objection. Judge Patrick M. Garcia signed the Order of Release of Property directing the 2013 Ford F-150 (VIN 1FTFW1E66DFB39192) be released to Government Employees Credit Union (GECU), the lienholder — not to Lozano or his family.

Lozano Ford F-150 FX4 when first confiscated - windows and sunroof closed

When Confiscated — Windows & Sunroof Closed

Lozano's 2013 Ford F-150 FX4 when first confiscated as evidence. All windows and sunroof are closed. The truck was stored indoors at a facility. Blood splatter evidence was found on the seats requiring testing, per the State.

Interior of Lozano truck destroyed by exposure - windows and sunroof left open at impound

At Impound — Interior Destroyed by Exposure

The same truck's interior after being stored outdoors at the police impound with windows and sunroof left open for months. Every surface is covered in dirt and debris. All blood splatter evidence was destroyed. No DNA testing was ever performed.

FACT 01

The State Said Blood Testing Was Needed

At Lozano's bond hearing on February 24, 2016, the State indicated that blood had been found on a seat that needed testing. At the Article 28.01 hearing on March 14, 2016, prosecutor Rebecca Estrada Quinn told Judge Garcia the State needed the truck because "some testing needs to be done on it" regarding the bloodstains found inside. Judge Garcia ordered the State to report back in two weeks on what they were doing with the vehicle.

FACT 02

No DNA Testing Was Ever Performed

Despite the State's repeated assertions that blood evidence needed testing, no DNA testing was ever performed or even attempted — even though the State filed an affidavit to collect Lozano's DNA for comparison. This is devastating because if the blood belonged to Hinojos, it would have proved he physically entered Lozano's vehicle. Under Texas Penal Code § 9.32(b), that entry triggers the Castle Doctrine's presumption of reasonableness — the exact issue the jury asked about in its note during deliberations. The evidence that could have conclusively answered the jury's question was destroyed.

FACT 03

23 Months in Custody — Then Released by Court Order

The truck was held for approximately 23 months total. During that time, the windows were left down at the police impound, exposing the interior to the elements and destroying the blood evidence. On December 19, 2017 — just three months after conviction — Judge Garcia signed an Order of Release of Property directing the truck be released to Government Employees Credit Union (GECU), the lienholder, "in the care of: Carlos Miranda, III, Attorney for GECU or Juan Montoya (Tri-State Recovery)." The truck was released to the bank, not to Lozano or his family, and without the defense ever having the opportunity to independently test the blood evidence.

Why does this matter? If DNA testing had revealed Jorge Hinojos's blood inside Lozano's truck, it would have proven beyond any doubt that Hinojos had entered the vehicle — the exact question the jury asked about during deliberations. Under Texas Penal Code § 9.32(b), when a person unlawfully and with force enters an occupied vehicle, the vehicle's occupant is presumed to have acted reasonably in using deadly force. Hinojos's blood inside the truck would have conclusively established entry and triggered the Castle Doctrine's presumption of reasonableness, giving Lozano the legal right to defend himself. The State claimed blood testing was needed, held the truck for 23 months, never performed any testing, allowed the evidence to be destroyed by leaving the windows down — and then the CCA held there was no evidence Lozano had a subjective belief deadly force was necessary. The very evidence that would have settled this question was destroyed while in the State's custody.

Injuries to Carlos Lozano

These photographs were attached as exhibits to trial counsel Michael Gibson's Motion for New Trial, filed September 25, 2017 — just one week after conviction. In that motion, Gibson admitted that preventing Lozano from testifying was his decision, and that Lozano "should have testified" so this evidence could be introduced. Gibson also revealed that when he spoke to jurors after the verdict, several told him they believed no attack on Lozano ever occurred — despite the State's own witnesses testifying to the beer can being thrown and Hinojos punching Lozano through the window. The jury never saw these photos because Gibson wouldn't let Lozano take the stand. The CCA later held there was no evidence of Lozano's "subjective belief" that deadly force was necessary.

Severe bruising around Carlos Lozano left eye from attack

Clerk's Record p. 805

Severe bruising around Lozano's left eye and face, consistent with being struck by a full beer can and punched multiple times through the truck window.

Bruising on both sides of Carlos Lozano lower back from attack

Clerk's Record p. 806

Bruising on both sides of Lozano's lower back — injuries consistent with being pulled or dragged while seated in the truck, corroborating his account that attackers were trying to pull him out of the vehicle.

Chronology

Case Timeline

September 26, 2015

The Incident at Pockets Billiards

In the early morning hours, Carlos Lozano was confronted in the parking lot of Pockets Billiards and Fun on N. Mesa St. in El Paso. After Jorge Hinojos threw a full beer can through the open passenger window of Lozano's truck, Hinojos ran around the truck and punched Lozano through the driver-side window. Lozano, still seated in his truck, turned and shot Hinojos three times. Hinojos was killed.

Late September 2015

Lozano Voluntarily Surrenders

After initially fleeing the scene, Lozano voluntarily turned himself in to authorities. He was released on bail on February 24, 2016 and remained free for 19 months with zero failures to appear and zero bail violations.

January 21, 2016

Indictment for Murder

Lozano was indicted by an El Paso County grand jury for murder under Texas Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1) and (b)(2).

Late September 2015

Truck Seized by Juárez Police, Later Recovered

Lozano's truck was initially seized by Mexican (Juárez) police following the incident, then recovered and transferred to El Paso law enforcement custody.

February 24, 2016

Bond Hearing — State Notes Blood Evidence in Truck

At Lozano's bond hearing, the State indicated that blood had been found on a seat in the truck that needed to be tested.

March 14, 2016

28.01 Hearing — Truck Dispute

At an Article 28.01 hearing before Judge Garcia, defense counsel requested the truck's return. Prosecutor Rebecca Estrada Quinn stated that testing on bloodstains still needed to be done. Judge Garcia ordered the State to report back in two weeks. Despite these representations, no DNA testing was ever performed.

September 12–18, 2017

Trial & Conviction — 25 Years

Lozano was tried in the 384th Judicial District Court before Judge Patrick M. Garcia. Prosecutors Myrna Pages and Diana Meraz presented the State's case; defense attorney Michael R. Gibson (retained) represented Lozano. On the first day of trial, Gibson raised a concern on the record that the surveillance video "appears to have been tampered with" and that objects in the footage "disappear" — but he never requested an expert, moved to exclude the video, or followed up when State’s Exhibit 5 was admitted unchallenged. The jury was instructed on self-defense, including the Castle Doctrine presumption of reasonableness. However, the charge erroneously included "duty to retreat" language removed from Texas law in 2007 — and the State systematically exploited this erroneous standard from voir dire through closing arguments. Gibson also objected that the court refused to instruct the jury that a full beer can could constitute a deadly weapon, citing Ferrel v. State — the court denied this objection. During deliberations, the jury sent a note asking about the presumption of reasonableness and what it means to "enter" a vehicle. The jury convicted Lozano of murder on September 15, 2017, and he was sentenced to 25 years on September 18, 2017.

December 19, 2017

Truck Released — Blood Evidence Destroyed

After approximately 23 months in State custody with no DNA testing ever performed on the blood evidence, and with the windows left down at the impound destroying the blood splatter, Judge Garcia signed an Order of Release of Property on December 19, 2017, directing the truck (2013 Ford F-150, VIN 1FTFW1E66DFB39192) be released to Government Employees Credit Union (GECU), the lienholder — not to Lozano or his family. The order directed release “in the care of: Carlos Miranda, III, Attorney for GECU or Juan Montoya (Tri-State Recovery).” All blood evidence had been spoliated, and the defense never had the opportunity to independently test it.

October 31, 2019

Eighth Court of Appeals Reverses Conviction

The Eighth Court of Appeals in El Paso held that the erroneous "duty to retreat" jury instructions caused Lozano egregious harm and reversed his conviction, ordering a new trial. Lozano v. State, No. 08-17-00251-CR (Tex. App.—El Paso Oct. 31, 2019).

May 6, 2020

CCA Grants State's PDR with New Legal Theory

The CCA granted the State's Petition for Discretionary Review. For the first time, the State argued that Lozano was never entitled to self-defense instructions at all — claiming there was no evidence of Lozano's "subjective belief" that deadly force was immediately necessary. This theory was never raised at trial, never argued to the jury, and was not the basis of the conviction.

October 6, 2021

CCA Reverses Court of Appeals, Affirms Conviction

The CCA issued a unanimous opinion (Hervey, J.) adopting the State's new theory. It reversed the Eighth Court of Appeals and affirmed Lozano's original conviction and 25-year sentence, holding that Lozano was not egregiously harmed because he was "not entitled to a charge on self-defense" in the first place. Lozano v. State, 636 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). A Corrected Opinion was issued October 19, 2021 to fix an ambiguity in the original holding. Lozano retained new counsel, Tate N. Saunders, who filed a Motion for Rehearing on November 5, 2021, arguing that punching through a vehicle window constitutes unlawful forceful entry triggering the Castle Doctrine presumption. The Motion for Rehearing was denied January 12, 2022, and the CCA mandate issued January 13, 2022.

July 2025

11.07 Writ Filed with CCA

An application for writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07 was filed by attorney Tate N. Saunders, raising claims of false video evidence, Brady violations (withheld video footage and blood evidence spoliation), ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the CCA's PDR holding contravenes the Legislature's intent in enacting the Stand Your Ground doctrine. The State filed a preliminary answer on August 13, 2025. On August 19, 2025, the Court of Criminal Appeals received and docketed the application as WR-96,918-01.

August 2025 – Present

Active Litigation — WR-96,918-01

The State filed a preliminary answer on August 13, 2025, generally denying all claims. The CCA received and docketed the writ application on August 19, 2025 as WR-96,918-01. In September 2025, habeas counsel Tate Saunders filed an amended 11.07 application adding six new grounds for relief (Grounds 5–10), including ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel, trial court error in refusing a deadly weapon instruction and a Chapter 64 DNA motion, and the court reporter's suppression of a critical pretrial transcript. Lozano's counsel has requested an evidentiary hearing for in-camera review of the video evidence, witness testimony, and expert analysis. The case is actively being litigated in the 384th District Court.

Central Legal Issue

New Legal Theory Raised for the First Time on PDR

At trial, the jury was instructed on self-defense — including the Castle Doctrine presumption of reasonableness for a person defending themselves inside an occupied vehicle. The jury actively considered this defense, even sending a note asking the judge about the presumption and what it means to "enter." But after the Eighth Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, the State introduced an entirely new argument on PDR: that Lozano was never entitled to self-defense instructions at all. The CCA adopted that theory — and it has implications far beyond this case.

ISSUE 01

The State Changed Its Theory After Trial

At trial, the State never argued that Lozano was not entitled to self-defense instructions. The jury was charged on self-defense including the Castle Doctrine. It was only after the Eighth Court of Appeals reversed the conviction that the State, for the first time on PDR, argued there was no evidence of Lozano's "subjective belief" that deadly force was immediately necessary. The CCA granted review on this basis and adopted the theory in its October 2021 opinion.

ISSUE 02

The Castle Doctrine Presumption Was Undermined

Texas Penal Code § 9.32(b) provides that a person's belief that deadly force was necessary is presumed reasonable if someone unlawfully entered their occupied vehicle with force. The CCA held that this presumption only applies if the defendant first demonstrates a "subjective belief" — effectively requiring proof of an internal mental state before the statutory presumption can even be triggered. This reading narrows the Castle Doctrine's protection for anyone defending themselves in their vehicle.

ISSUE 03

The Jury Never Evaluated This Theory

The jury that convicted Lozano was instructed on self-defense and actively deliberated on it — they sent a note asking about the presumption of reasonableness and what it means to "enter" a vehicle. The verdict was based on the law as presented at trial, including (erroneously) a duty to retreat. The jury was never asked to determine whether Lozano lacked a subjective belief in the need for self-defense, because no one raised that argument until the PDR.

ISSUE 04

A Precedent That Affects All Texans

The CCA's ruling creates a framework where the State can argue, for the first time on appeal, that a defendant was never entitled to the self-defense instructions the jury received. It also establishes that the Castle Doctrine's presumption of reasonableness requires a separate showing of subjective mental state — even when someone has been punched through the window of their own vehicle. This precedent affects every Texan who relies on the Castle Doctrine for protection in their home or vehicle.

From the Trial Record

What the Jury Heard — Reporter’s Record, Volume 10

Defense Objection — Beer Can as Deadly Weapon (p. 4)

“I have previously cited the case of Ferrel v. State… wherein my position is it holds the matter of law that throwing a full beer can at somebody and hitting him in the head area is use of a deadly weapon as a matter of law. And I would object to the Court’s not having included [that instruction].”

The court denied this objection. Without this instruction, the jury had no framework to evaluate whether the beer can thrown at Lozano constituted a deadly weapon — critical context for determining whether his belief that deadly force was necessary was reasonable under § 9.32. This preserved error is Ground 8 of the pending 11.07 writ, and appellate counsel’s failure to raise it on appeal is Ground 6.

The Erroneous Retreat Instruction in the Jury Charge (p. 15)

“…and that a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would not have retreated, then you should acquit the defendant on the grounds of self-defense…”

This language was removed from Texas law in 2007 when the Legislature passed SB 378, eliminating the duty to retreat for persons defending themselves in their vehicles. The Eighth Court of Appeals reversed Lozano’s conviction based on this error, but the CCA reinstated the conviction, holding Lozano was “not egregiously harmed.”

State’s Closing Argument — Exploiting the Erroneous Instruction (pp. 26, 74–75)

“A reasonable person in defendant’s situation at such time and place would have retreated before using deadly force against Jorge Hinojos. All of these — look at all of these carefully. They all apply.”

The prosecution repeatedly urged the jury to find that Lozano should have retreated — a legal standard that no longer existed under Texas law. The State argued retreat from voir dire through closing, systematically leveraging an instruction the Legislature had already eliminated. The jury was told “could he have driven away? Yes” and that a “reasonable person would have tried to flee at all costs rather than kill.”

State’s Closing — Fist vs. Firearm (p. 73)

“What was the unlawful deadly force that Jorge Hinojos used against Carlos Lozano? His fist? His fist versus a firearm? Really?”

The prosecution framed the confrontation as a fist against a gun. But a full, closed beer can was also thrown at Lozano’s head — and the jury was never instructed that it could constitute a deadly weapon because the court had denied Gibson’s objection. Meanwhile, the prosecution argued there was “absolutely no evidence” of deadly force against Lozano — even though their own witnesses testified to the beer can being thrown and Hinojos punching Lozano through his vehicle window.

Defense Counsel Identifies Video Tampering — Then Abandons It (Vol. 7, pp. 13–14)

MR. GIBSON: “There is one thing on the video which I think they will use, which there appears to have been some tampering with the video. There is a point in it where they’re taking pictures of some videos, including the truck, and all of a sudden some other cars and things disappear.”

THE COURT: “You’re saying that some things that may be important have been cut out?”
MR. GIBSON: “Yeah.”
THE COURT: “So there’s a spoilage issue going on here or what?”
MR. GIBSON: “Well, I’m thinking that if somebody has tampered with the video —”
THE COURT: “So what relief are you asking me for?”
MR. GIBSON: “Well, I presume that we have to have whoever fixed it come in and explain why, in that one position, some of it just disappears.”
THE COURT: “Well, they’re obviously going to have somebody come in and authenticate it. You can question that witness when they come in.”
MR. GIBSON: “You may want to do that out of the presence of the jury.”
THE COURT: “Okay. Just remind me.”
MR. GIBSON: “All right.”

Gibson raised a tampering concern on the record — and then abandoned it entirely. Despite Judge Garcia’s offer to hold an authentication hearing outside the jury’s presence, Gibson never reminded the judge, never requested a video forensic expert, never moved to exclude the video, and never objected when it was admitted. The Exhibit Index for Volume 7 confirms: State’s Exhibit 5 (Video recording) was offered and admitted on page 51 of the same volume — with no objection noted. The same video that Dr. Adam Key later concluded was edited and non-original went to the jury completely unchallenged. During closing arguments (Volume 10, pp. 63–65), the prosecution played this video for the jury and walked them through it frame by frame, identifying individuals and narrating the events — all based on footage that forensic analysis now shows had been altered. This is Ground 4 of the pending 11.07 writ (IAC — Trial Counsel).

Sources: Reporter’s Record, Volumes 7 and 10 of 12, State v. Lozano, Cause No. 20160D00209, 384th Judicial District Court, El Paso County, Texas. September 12 & 15, 2017. Court Reporter: Genesis Stephens. Vol. 10 (PDF) ↗ · Vol. 7 (PDF) ↗

Why This Matters

The right to self-defense is fundamental under Texas law. The Castle Doctrine and the "stand your ground" amendments of 2007 were enacted specifically to protect people who defend themselves in their homes and vehicles. The CCA's decision in Lozano v. State effectively holds that even when a jury is instructed on self-defense and actively considers it, the conviction can be upheld on a theory never presented to that jury — that the defendant lacked a subjective belief in the need for self-defense. This case presents the question of whether the State can change its legal theory after conviction, and whether the Castle Doctrine's statutory presumption can be rendered meaningless by requiring proof of an internal mental state that the statute was designed to presume.

Prosecuting Office

El Paso District Attorney’s Office: A Pattern of Misconduct

Carlos Lozano was prosecuted by the El Paso County District Attorney’s Office, covering the 34th Judicial District. Since his 2017 conviction, this office has experienced extraordinary upheaval — including mass case dismissals, witness tampering allegations, a DA who invoked her Fifth Amendment rights in open court, prosecutorial vindictiveness findings, and a federal court order finding systematic evidence withholding rising to the level of gross negligence. This pattern is directly relevant to the Brady violations and evidentiary manipulation alleged in Lozano’s 11.07 writ.

Why this matters to Carlos Lozano’s case: The same office that prosecuted Lozano has now been found by a federal judge to have systematically withheld evidence, used a sham evidence-sharing portal, and forced defendants to accept pleas without seeing exculpatory material. Lozano’s writ alleges the State withheld a second surveillance video, presented an edited surveillance video as authentic, and spoliated blood evidence that could have proven self-defense. These are not isolated claims — they fit within a documented institutional pattern.

Period	District Attorney	Notes
1993 – 2020	Jaime Esparza	Longest-tenured DA in El Paso history. Now U.S. Attorney (W.D. Tex., 2022–2025).
Jan 2021 – Dec 2022	Yvonne Rosales	Forced to resign amid removal petition, criminal allegations, and Fifth Amendment invocations.
Dec 2022 – Dec 2024	Bill Hicks	Appointed by Gov. Abbott. First Republican DA in El Paso. Lost 2024 election.
Jan 2025 – present	James Montoya	Current DA. Former homicide prosecutor under Esparza. Lozano’s habeas case is pending under this administration.

Era of Jaime Esparza (1993–2020)

Esparza Era

Daniel Villegas Wrongful Conviction

In 1993, 16-year-old Daniel Villegas was arrested for a double homicide and coerced into confessing by a detective who allegedly threatened physical violence and sexual assault. Esparza’s office prosecuted Villegas three times. After a 1995 life sentence was overturned by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for ineffective assistance of counsel, Esparza chose to retry the case. In October 2018, a jury acquitted Villegas after nearly 20 years in prison. He received $1.75 million in state compensation, and a federal civil rights lawsuit was ruled eligible for trial in August 2025.

Esparza Era

Brady Letter: ADA Butterworth & Medical Examiner Manipulation

In 2010, two ADAs in Esparza’s own office issued a Brady letter alleging that their colleague ADA Denise Butterworth had improperly influenced what the El Paso County Medical Examiner wrote in autopsy reports in a capital murder case. Despite the Brady letter, Butterworth continued prosecuting cases for years — including on the Daniel Villegas retrial. The public only learned about the letter after Esparza left office.

Esparza Era

Additional Wrongful Convictions

Brandon Moon was convicted in 1988 of aggravated sexual assault based on eyewitness misidentification and flawed forensic testimony. He spent 17 years in prison before DNA testing exonerated him in 2004. Alejandro Hernandez was convicted in 1994 for murder; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated his conviction in 2006.

Esparza Era

Walmart Case Misconduct (Spanning Multiple Administrations)

Defense attorneys for Walmart mass shooter Patrick Crusius alleged prosecutorial misconduct spanning all three DA administrations. Under Esparza, the DA’s office improperly obtained recordings of fifteen privileged phone calls between Crusius and his defense attorneys — totaling over 3.5 hours — and obtained jail visitation logs of attorney-client and mental health visits in violation of court directives.

Era of Yvonne Rosales (Jan 2021 – Dec 2022)

Rosales Era

Mass Case Dismissals (~1,000 Cases)

Judges dismissed nearly 1,000 criminal cases in 2022 because prosecutors failed to seek indictments or file required documentation within state-mandated deadlines. The backlog was estimated at 10,000 to 14,000 cases. The Chief Public Defender warned that 1,100 more cases could be eligible for dismissal.

Rosales Era

Prosecutorial Vindictiveness — Gabaldon Case

In a murder case involving self-defense claims, the DA’s office vindictively escalated charges to capital murder and sought the death penalty after being caught unprepared for trial. Judge Alyssa Perez dismissed all charges, ruling the office had engaged in prosecutorial vindictiveness — seeking the death penalty solely to punish the defendant for exercising his constitutional right to a trial.

Rosales Era

Witness Tampering & Intimidation (Hoffmann Family)

A Rosales associate allegedly used the family of a Walmart shooting victim to undermine the presiding judge, sending unauthorized emails from the victim’s widow’s cellphone. The victim’s son testified that the associate showed him a firearm, boasted about having “snipers everywhere,” and threatened that Rosales’s enemies would suffer “hits.” The FBI was contacted.

Rosales Era

DA Invokes Fifth Amendment Rights

Both DA Rosales and ADA Curtis Cox invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination during court hearings in late November and December 2022 — an almost unheard-of event for sitting prosecutors. Judge Medrano had to threaten Rosales with arrest before she appeared.

Rosales Era

Forced Resignation

A defense attorney filed a court petition to remove Rosales from office in August 2022, citing incompetence and official misconduct. The County Attorney agreed to prosecute the removal case. Rosales resigned in November 2022, one day before a hearing that could have led to her suspension. Governor Abbott appointed Bill Hicks as her replacement.

Era of Bill Hicks (Dec 2022 – Dec 2024)

Hicks Era

Court Order: Systematic Evidence Withholding (Dec. 9, 2024)

Judge Roy Ferguson of the 394th Judicial District Court signed a devastating order making ten formal findings against the DA’s Office. The court found that ADA Kevin Marcantel and the office systematically failed to comply with discovery obligations in Culberson and Hudspeth Counties. Key findings included:

The “portal system” was a sham. The prosecution’s evidence-sharing portal systematically failed to produce evidence to the defense. Discovery was only produced when manually overridden — which was routinely not done unless ordered by the court or demanded by defense counsel.

Defendants forced to accept pleas blind. Defendants were forced to evaluate plea offers without ever seeing material and potentially exculpatory evidence in the State’s possession — a fundamental due process violation.

Not inadvertence — gross negligence. The court explicitly found the violations were caused not by inadvertence or mere negligence, but by systematic conduct rising to the level of gross negligence.

Intentional withholding. In the Brandon Hagan case (child sexual abuse), the court found the State “intentionally failed to comply” with discovery obligations and court orders. Evidence specifically requested by the defense was suppressed for over two years.

Evidence excluded in five cases. The court granted relief to defendants in five cases, excluding tainted evidence from trial. The court warned that further violations would result in dismissal of charges.

Read the full court order (Exhibit R to the 11.07 Writ) ↗

Hicks Era

Key Hearing Testimony (Nov. 18, 2024)

Sworn testimony at the hearing revealed the scope of the problem. Chief Public Defender James McDermott testified his office had been struggling with discovery issues for nearly three years, including missing videos, lab reports, and late document dumps. He described the DA’s response to misconduct allegations: “They said it was our fault. They said the Court can’t do anything about it. And they asked for us to be punished for raising it.”

Defense attorney Paul Chambers testified that when he visited the DA’s El Paso office to view evidence in child sexual abuse cases, he discovered an estimated 1,500 undisclosed documents in a zip file. He testified he immediately printed portal records because he feared the prosecution would retroactively upload everything and claim it had been available all along.

Chambers also testified about a waiver form the DA’s Office required defendants to sign as part of plea agreements, which he interpreted as waiving any claim arising from the prosecution’s failure to disclose evidence. After discovering the hidden documents, he advised clients to refuse the waiver.

Read the full 194-page hearing transcript (PDF) ↗

Era of James Montoya (Jan 2025 – Present)

Current DA

Current Administration

James Montoya was sworn in on January 1, 2025. A former homicide prosecutor under Esparza, Montoya’s office is currently handling the State’s response to Carlos Lozano’s 11.07 writ of habeas corpus. ADAs Rebecca E. Quinn, Justin Stevens, and Elena Esparza are assigned to the habeas case.

By the Numbers

~1,000 cases dismissed for missed deadlines • 14,000-case backlog • 60+ staff resignations under Rosales • 5 cases with evidence excluded by Judge Ferguson • 10 formal findings of misconduct • 3+ wrongful convictions documented

Relevance to Lozano

Lozano’s claims of withheld video evidence, edited surveillance footage, and spoliated blood/DNA evidence are consistent with the institutional pattern of evidence withholding now formally documented by a federal court order. The same office. The same discovery failures. The same pattern.

Sources: This section is compiled from publicly available news reports and court records including coverage by El Paso Matters, Texas Tribune, KTSM, KFOX14, KTEP, KVIA, The Trace, the court order filed December 10, 2024 in the 394th Judicial District Court, Culberson County, Texas, and the full hearing transcript from November 18, 2024 (Exhibit_Pages_part_6.pdf). All claims are attributed to their original sources. Inclusion of an allegation does not constitute a finding of guilt. Readers are encouraged to review the original source materials for complete context.

Press & Media

Press Releases & Coverage

Official press releases and media coverage related to the case of Carlos Lozano. Members of the media may contact the advocacy team for interviews, statements, and additional information.

Mar 2026

Press Release

Evidentiary Hearing Scheduled in Carlos Lozano Wrongful Conviction Case

An evidentiary hearing has been scheduled for April 13, 2026, at 8:00 a.m. in the 384th Judicial District Court, El Paso County, Texas. Video forensic expert Dr. Adam Key — a certified expert witness in the Texas Criminal Court System — is expected to testify that the surveillance videos the State presented at trial could not have been produced by the DVR system at Pockets Bar & Grill. Dr. Key’s analysis identified the wrong file format for the location’s equipment, different bitrates and framerates between Parts 1 and 2, a 33-minute gap in file creation times, and a clear jump and edit at the critical moment the physical altercation began. He concluded the videos were edited and non-original. The hearing represents the first opportunity for a court to hear live expert testimony on the video manipulation claims since Carlos Lozano’s 2017 murder conviction. His 11.07 writ of habeas corpus (CCA No. WR-96,918-01) raises ten grounds for relief.

Read Full Press Release (PDF) →

Mar 2026

Press Release

Feature Story: After Eight Years Behind Bars, El Paso Family Fights to Prove Video Evidence Was Manipulated (English & Spanish)

Dual-language feature / human interest press release telling the full story of Carlos Lozano’s case in English and Spanish. Covers the video manipulation findings by Dr. Adam Key, the El Paso DA’s Office record of misconduct, and the family’s eight-year fight for justice. Intended for English- and Spanish-language media outlets.

Read Full Press Release (PDF) →

Mar 2026

Press Release

Attorney Letter to Texas Legislature — Senate Bill 378 & Castle Doctrine

Letter from habeas counsel Tate N. Saunders to the Texas Legislature regarding Senate Bill 378 (Castle Doctrine / Stand Your Ground) and the CCA’s interpretation in Lozano v. State. Argues the ruling contravenes the Legislature’s express intent to protect citizens who use force in self-defense inside their occupied vehicles. Calls on legislators to examine how the CCA’s holding affects the protections they enacted.

Read Full Letter (PDF) →

For Attorneys

Case Review Package

This section consolidates all publicly available case materials and legal issues for attorneys considering involvement in Carlos Lozano's case. If you are a licensed attorney interested in reviewing, consulting on, or assisting with this case, everything you need to get started is below.

Complete Document Index

CCA Opinion — PD-1319-19 Delivered: October 6, 2021 · 18 pages
View PDF ↗
Eighth Court of Appeals Opinion (08-17-00251-CR) Decided: October 31, 2019 · 15 pages
View PDF ↗
State's Brief on Petition for Discretionary Review Filed: June 23, 2020 · ADA Ronald Banerji / DA Jaime Esparza · PD-1319-19 · 22 pages
View PDF ↗
Appellant's Brief — PD-1319-19 (del Valle) Filed: August 17, 2020 · 29 pages
View PDF ↗
Amended 11.07 Writ Application (New Grounds 5–10) Signed: September 20, 2025 · 26 pages
View PDF ↗
State's Preliminary Answer to 11.07 Writ Filed: August 13, 2025 · 7 pages
View PDF ↗
State's Letter & Proposed Order Designating Issues Filed: August 13, 2025 · 6 pages
View PDF ↗
CCA Writ Received Notice — WR-96,918-01 Received: August 19, 2025 · 4 pages
View PDF ↗
Trial Jury Charge (with erroneous instructions) September 15, 2017 · Reporter's Record Vol. 10 · 82 pages
View PDF ↗
Trial Transcript — Jury Charge & Closing Arguments September 15, 2017 · Reporter's Record Vol. 10 · 82 pages
View PDF ↗
Trial Transcript — Pretrial Motions & Video Objection September 12, 2017 · Reporter's Record Vol. 7 · 18 pages (excerpts)
View PDF ↗
Jury Note re: Presumption of Reasonableness 2017
PDF Pending
Indictment & Charging Documents Filed: January 21, 2016
PDF Pending
Status Hearing Transcript (Vol. 2) October 13, 2016 · 15 pages
View PDF ↗
Notice of Setting — Motion Hearing Set: March 20, 2023 · Filed: February 16, 2023
View PDF ↗
Motion for New Trial (Gibson) Filed: September 25, 2017 · 4 pages + 2 photo exhibits
View PDF ↗
Truck Evidence Photos — When Confiscated 11 pages of photographs · Windows & sunroof closed · State's Exhibit 194
View PDF ↗
Injury Photos (Clerk's Record pp. 805-806) Attached to Motion for New Trial · 2 pages
View PDF ↗
Motion for Extension of Time to File Rehearing Filed: October 20, 2021 · 3 pages
View PDF ↗
Motion for Rehearing (Saunders) Filed: November 5, 2021 · 5 pages
View PDF ↗
CCA Mandate Issued: January 13, 2022
View PDF ↗
Motion for Bail Pending Appeal (del Valle) Filed: September 14, 2020 · 4 pages
View PDF ↗
Order Authorizing Release of Truck December 19, 2017
PDF Pending
Order Regarding Representation (CCA) Issued: June 29, 2020
View PDF ↗
Discovery Hearing Transcript — 394th District Court (Judge Ferguson) November 18, 2024 · Culberson County · 194 pages
View PDF ↗
Press Release — Evidentiary Hearing (Dual Language: English & Spanish) Released: March 19, 2026 · 6 pages
View PDF ↗
Attorney Letter to Texas Legislature — Re: SB 378 & Lozano v. State Dated: March 19, 2026 · Tate N. Saunders · 5 pages
View PDF ↗
El Paso District Attorney's Office — A Pattern of Misconduct Compiled: March 2026 · Covers 2017–present
View on this page ↗

11.07 Writ Exhibits

Exhibit A — Applicant Affidavit (Carlos Lozano) Sworn: April 2025 · 9 pages (pp. 1–10 of exhibit PDF)
View PDF ↗
Exhibit B — Witness Affidavit (Pedro Jimenez Sr.) Sworn: July 1, 2025 · 2 pages (pp. 11–13 of exhibit PDF)
View PDF ↗
Exhibit C — Trial Counsel Call Transcript (Saunders & Gibson) Recorded: November 11, 2021 · 14 pages (pp. 14–28 of exhibit PDF)
View PDF ↗
Exhibit D — Video Expert Affidavit (Francisco Martinez) Sworn: July 1, 2025 · 2 pages (pp. 29–31 of exhibit PDF)
View PDF ↗
Exhibit E — Video Forensic Expert Report (Dr. Adam Key) Dated: November 4, 2021 · 8 pages (pp. 32–40 of exhibit PDF)
View PDF ↗
Exhibit F — State's Exhibit 5: Trial Videos (Parts 1 & 2) Surveillance video presented at trial · Forensic analysis by Dr. Key found editing, wrong format, different bitrates
Part 1 (21 MB) ↗ · Part 2 (5.3 MB) ↗ · Link Page (PDF) ↗
Exhibit G — Video Expert C.V. (Dr. Adam Matthew Key) Dated: January 29, 2020 · 2 pages (pp. 42–43 of exhibit PDF)
View PDF ↗
Exhibit H — Witness Affidavit (Marcela Moriel) Sworn: November 8, 2021 · 5 pages
View PDF ↗
Exhibit I — Additional Scene Photos (Pockets & Pharmacy) Aerial & street view · 2 pages
View PDF ↗
Exhibit J — Paralegal Investigator Affidavit (David Mains) Sworn: July 14, 2025 · 1 page
View PDF ↗
Exhibit K — Bar Receipt (Pockets Billiards) September 26, 2015
View PDF ↗
Exhibit L — Additional Camera Placement Photos SureCare Pharmacy cameras facing Pockets parking lot · 4 pages
View PDF ↗
Exhibit M — Emails: A.D.A. and Habeas Counsel March–June 2022 · Saunders, Cox, Darnold, Frausto · 13 pages
View PDF ↗
Exhibit N — Attorney Affidavit (Tate N. Saunders) Sworn: July 16, 2025 · 3 pages
View PDF ↗
Exhibit O — Truck Damage Photos (Before & After Comparison) State's exhibits vs. private investigator photos · 5 pages
View PDF ↗
Exhibit P — Emails: Court Reporter and Counsel May 2022–January 2023 · Mains, Stephens, Saunders · 12 pages
View PDF ↗
Exhibit R — Court Order: Finding El Paso DA’s Office Guilty of Evidentiary Manipulation Filed: December 10, 2024 · 394th Judicial District Court, Culberson County · Judge Roy Ferguson · 5 pages
View PDF ↗
Exhibit Q — Art. 28.01 Discovery Hearing Transcript November 18, 2024 · 394th Judicial District Court, Culberson County · Judge Roy Ferguson · 194 pages
View PDF ↗

Claims Raised in 11.07 Application

Claim 1 False Video Evidence — Due Process Violation
The State presented a surveillance video (State's Exhibit 5) at trial that expert analysis by Dr. Adam Key has determined was cropped and edited, including removal of footage at the critical juncture when the attack occurred. The video could not have been produced by the surveillance equipment at Pockets. The State represented it as a fair and accurate recording.
Claim 2A Brady Violation — Withheld Video from Neighboring Business
Surveillance video from a camera on the building adjacent to Pockets — which captured the incident from the driver's side of Lozano's truck — was never disclosed to the defense. Witness Marcela Moriel viewed this video the day after the incident and states it showed multiple assailants attacking Lozano. Former ADA Curtis Cox confirmed additional CD/DVD recordings existed but never produced them.
Claim 2B Brady Violation — Spoliation of Blood Evidence in Truck
Despite the State's own representations that blood testing needed to be performed on evidence found in the truck, no DNA testing was ever conducted. The truck was held for 23 months with windows left down at the impound, destroying the blood evidence, then released to a bank on December 19, 2017 over Lozano's objection. Critically, if the blood was Hinojos's, it would have proven he entered the vehicle — triggering the Castle Doctrine's presumption of reasonableness under § 9.32(b) and establishing Lozano's right to self-defense as a matter of law. This was the exact question the jury asked about during deliberations.
Claim 3 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel — Multiple Failures
Trial counsel Michael R. Gibson committed at least 10 specific failures including: refusing to let Lozano testify about his subjective fear (which Gibson admitted was a mistake in a post-trial Motion for New Trial); failing to object to the State's systematic use of the erroneous "duty to retreat" from voir dire through closing; failing to secure a video expert or even preserve error on the manipulated video; failing to interview or subpoena available defense witnesses; and failing to object to the jury charge's omission of the State's burden to disprove the presumption of reasonableness.
Claim 4 CCA Holding Contravenes Stand Your Ground Legislative Intent
The CCA's requirement of proof of "subjective belief" before the Castle Doctrine presumption can apply contravenes the Texas Legislature's express intent in enacting SB 378 (2007) to empower citizens to use deadly force without a duty to retreat when attacked in their home, vehicle, or place of business. The opinion viewed evidence in isolation rather than holistically in the light most favorable to the defendant.

Additional Claims — Amended Application (Grounds 5–10)

Claim 5 IAC — Trial Counsel Failed to Obtain DNA Test Results
Trial counsel failed to compel DNA testing of blood found in the truck despite a court order directing the State to produce results within two weeks. Counsel filed no motion to compel, requested no continuance, and failed to preserve the issue. The untested blood could have corroborated that the complainant entered the vehicle — supporting the Castle Doctrine and Lozano's subjective state of mind.
Claim 6 IAC — Appellate Counsel Failed to Raise Preserved Jury Charge Error
Appellate counsel Kenneth Del Valle failed to raise on direct appeal trial counsel's preserved objection to the omission of a deadly weapon instruction regarding the full beer can. Because the error was preserved, the lower "some harm" standard under Almanza applied instead of "egregious harm." This omission may have changed the outcome of the CCA's PDR review.
Claim 7 IAC — Appellate Counsel Failed to Challenge Castle Doctrine Misapplication
Appellate counsel failed to argue that the State grossly misinterpreted § 9.32 as amended by SB 378 (Castle Doctrine). Uncontroverted evidence showed the complainant punched through the vehicle window — satisfying the statutory definition of "entry" under § 30.02(b) and triggering the presumption of reasonableness. Counsel's failure to raise this deprived Lozano of a meaningful challenge to the sufficiency of the State's evidence.
Claim 8 Trial Court Error — Refused Deadly Weapon Instruction for Beer Can
The trial court refused defense counsel's request to include a jury instruction that a full beer can could constitute a deadly weapon under Texas law. Trial counsel preserved this error by timely objection. Without this instruction, the jury lacked critical context to evaluate whether Lozano's belief that deadly force was necessary was reasonable under § 9.32. See Ferrell v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001).
Claim 9 Trial Court Error — Refused to Rule on Chapter 64 DNA Motion
Prior to the habeas filing, Lozano filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court failed and refused to rule on this properly filed motion, violating its mandatory duty and denying Lozano access to potentially exculpatory evidence material to both his self-defense claim and state misconduct allegations. See Swearingen v. State, 303 S.W.3d 728 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Claim 10 Court Reporter Suppressed Critical Pretrial Transcript
A supplemental reporter's record containing a critical pretrial proceeding — including discussion of blood evidence in the truck, the State's attempts to avoid testing, and a court order giving the State two weeks to produce results — was not included in the appellate record. This suppression denied Lozano a full and fair appellate review. Had the transcript been available, appellate counsel could have challenged the State's suppression of evidence under Brady and argued more persuasively for the Castle Doctrine. See Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956).

Key Case Information

CCA Case Number (PDR) PD-1319-19
CCA Case Number (11.07) WR-96,918-01 (received August 19, 2025)
Habeas Cause Number (Trial Court) 20160D00209-384-1
8th Court of Appeals No. 08-17-00251-CR
Trial Cause Number 2016-0D-00209
Convicting Court 384th Judicial District Court, El Paso County, Texas
Presiding Judge (Trial) Hon. Patrick M. Garcia
Prosecuting Office El Paso County District Attorney's Office, 34th Judicial District (see documented issues)
Prosecutors at Trial Myrna Pages & Rebecca Estrada Quinn
CCA Opinion Author Hervey, J. (unanimous court)
Trial Counsel Michael R. Gibson (retained, now retired)
Current Habeas Counsel Tate N. Saunders (Kyle, TX)

If you are an attorney interested in reviewing this case, pro bono consultation, or representation, please contact the advocacy team directly.

Contact the Team

Get Involved

Contact & Support

Write to Carlos Lozano

TDCJ uses a digital mail system. Personal letters, greeting cards, and photos are sent to a processing center, where they are scanned in color and uploaded to the inmate's secure tablet. Letters of support and encouragement are welcome.

Mail Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Carlos Lozano, #02156992
PO Box 660400
Dallas, TX 75266-0400

Important: All personal mail must be sent to the Digital Mail Processing Center address above — not to the unit. Letters must include a return name and address. Do not include stamps, stickers, or unapproved enclosures. Inmates without a tablet will receive black-and-white printed copies.

What Goes Where

Personal letters & cards	Digital Mail Processing Center
Photos	Digital Mail Processing Center
Legal mail	Send to Unit
Books & magazines (from publishers)	Send to Unit
Media correspondence	Send to Unit
Business correspondence	Send to Unit

Unit Address (legal & special mail only):
Carlos Lozano, #02156992 · French Robertson Unit · 12071 FM 3522 · Abilene, TX 79601
For questions about digital mail, contact Securus® Customer Service at (800) 844-6591 or visit the TDCJ Digital Mail page.

Contact the Advocacy Team

For media inquiries, legal questions, or to offer support for Carlos's case, please reach out.

Email [email protected]

Phone [(XXX) XXX-XXXX]

What Happened

What They Didn’t Tell the Jury

The Truck: Key Evidence Spoliated

The State Said Blood Testing Was Needed

No DNA Testing Was Ever Performed

23 Months in Custody — Then Released by Court Order

Injuries to Carlos Lozano

Case Timeline

New Legal Theory Raised for the First Time on PDR

The State Changed Its Theory After Trial

The Castle Doctrine Presumption Was Undermined

The Jury Never Evaluated This Theory

A Precedent That Affects All Texans

What the Jury Heard — Reporter’s Record, Volume 10

Why This Matters

El Paso District Attorney’s Office: A Pattern of Misconduct

Era of Jaime Esparza (1993–2020)

Daniel Villegas Wrongful Conviction

Brady Letter: ADA Butterworth & Medical Examiner Manipulation

Additional Wrongful Convictions

Walmart Case Misconduct (Spanning Multiple Administrations)

Era of Yvonne Rosales (Jan 2021 – Dec 2022)

Mass Case Dismissals (~1,000 Cases)

Prosecutorial Vindictiveness — Gabaldon Case

Witness Tampering & Intimidation (Hoffmann Family)

DA Invokes Fifth Amendment Rights

Forced Resignation

Era of Bill Hicks (Dec 2022 – Dec 2024)

Court Order: Systematic Evidence Withholding (Dec. 9, 2024)

Key Hearing Testimony (Nov. 18, 2024)

Era of James Montoya (Jan 2025 – Present)

Current Administration

By the Numbers

Relevance to Lozano

What’s Happening Now

Understanding the 11.07 Process

What is an Article 11.07 Writ of Habeas Corpus?

Application Filed

Trial Court Review

Forwarded to CCA

CCA Decision

Public Records & Filings

Press Release — Evidentiary Hearing Scheduled

Press Release — Evidentiary Hearing (Dual Language)

Attorney Letter to Texas Legislature

Amended 11.07 Writ Application — New Grounds

CCA Writ Received Notice

State's Preliminary Answer to 11.07 Writ

State's Letter & Proposed Order Designating Issues

Discovery Hearing Transcript — 394th District Court

Notice of Setting — Motion Hearing

CCA Mandate

Motion for Rehearing (CCA)

Motion for Extension of Time to File Rehearing

CCA Opinion — PD-1319-19

Motion for Bail Pending Appeal

Appellant's Brief — PD-1319-19

Order Regarding Representation

State’s Brief on PDR

Eighth Court of Appeals Opinion

Motion for New Trial

Order of Release of Property — Truck

Trial Transcript — Jury Charge, Closings & Verdict

Trial Transcript — Pretrial Motions & Video Objection

Status Hearing Transcript — Oct. 13, 2016

Truck Evidence Photos — When Confiscated

Injury Photos — Carlos Lozano

Applicant Affidavit — Carlos Lozano

Witness Affidavit — Pedro Jimenez Sr.

Trial Counsel Call Transcript — Saunders & Gibson

Video Expert Affidavit — Francisco Martinez

Video Forensic Expert Report — Dr. Adam Key

Video Expert C.V. — Dr. Adam Key

Witness Affidavit — Marcela Moriel

Additional Scene Photos — Pockets & Pharmacy

Paralegal Investigator Affidavit — David Mains

Bar Receipt

Additional Camera Placement Photos

Emails: A.D.A. and Habeas Counsel

Attorney Affidavit — Tate N. Saunders