How Does Texas Charge Drug Delivery and Distribution?
Drug delivery under Tex. Health & Safety Code §481.112 is the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance — with or without an agency relationship between the parties. Delivery does not require a sale or any exchange of money. Handing drugs to another person for free constitutes delivery under Texas law. Acting as a middleman or courier qualifies as delivery. The charge level is determined by the Penalty Group of the substance and its weight. A drug distribution lawyer Houston identifies exactly which penalty group and weight tier the state alleges before any strategy is built:
| Substance (PG1) | Amount | Offense Level | Prison Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cocaine, heroin, meth, fentanyl | Under 1g | State Jail Felony | 180 days–2 yrs |
| Same | 1g–4g | 2nd Degree Felony | 2–20 yrs |
| Same | 4g–200g | 1st Degree Felony | 5–99 yrs |
| Same | 200g+ | Enhanced 1st Degree | 10–99 yrs; $100k fine |
| Delivery near a school, playground, or drug-free zone | Enhanced by 1 degree | Minimum range increases | |
Delivery of Penalty Group 2 substances (MDMA, PCP, THC concentrates) and Penalty Group 3 substances (Xanax, Valium, and other prescription drugs) follows the same weight-tiered structure as PG1 but starts and tops out one level lower. Delivery of marijuana carries its own scale under §481.120, running from a Class B misdemeanor for a quarter ounce or less delivered without payment up to a first-degree felony for 2,000 pounds or more. A drug distribution lawyer Houston checks which statute and penalty group actually governs before assuming PG1-level exposure applies.
How Are Drug Distribution Cases Built in Texas, and How Does Herman Attack Them?
Texas drug distribution cases are built on three categories of evidence: confidential informant testimony, controlled buy operations monitored by law enforcement, and circumstantial indicia of delivery intent — drug quantity, separate packaging, digital scales, and cash. Each category has specific vulnerabilities. Herman attacks every evidence type at its source, before any plea or trial is reached. A drug distribution lawyer Houston attacks each of these evidence categories independently rather than treating the case as one unified narrative.
A confidential informant (CI) is a person who provides law enforcement with information about alleged drug activity in exchange for leniency on their own pending criminal charges. CI credibility is inherently compromised by this financial arrangement. Herman demands full Brady disclosure of the CI's criminal history, cooperation agreements, prior reliability record, and all benefits received for cooperation. Unreliable or motivated informants expose the entire prosecution to credibility challenge.
A controlled buy is a law enforcement operation in which an informant or undercover officer purchases drugs from a suspect under police surveillance. The buyer is searched before and after the transaction. The purchase is monitored by audio or video equipment. The purchased drugs are documented and submitted into evidence. Herman scrutinizes surveillance logs, recording quality, officer observations, and chain-of-custody documentation for procedural failures that undermine the state's evidentiary foundation.
Entrapment is the government-induced commission of a crime by a person not otherwise predisposed to commit it. Texas Penal Code §8.06 codifies an entrapment defense. The defense applies when informants or undercover officers repeatedly pressure a person to sell who had no prior predisposition to do so. Herman evaluates every distribution case for entrapment potential — particularly in online solicitation stings and repeat-contact informant operations where the government's conduct created the crime. A drug distribution lawyer Houston evaluates entrapment specifically in sting and repeat-contact informant cases where government conduct may have created the crime.
The intent-to-deliver inference is the prosecution's use of circumstantial evidence to prove possession with intent to deliver when no actual transaction was observed. Quantity, packaging, digital scales, and cash are the state's primary indicia of delivery intent. Each piece of this evidence has an innocent explanation. Herman challenges each indicia individually — personal use explains the quantity, scales have legitimate household and commercial uses, and cash alone is not evidence of drug dealing. A drug distribution lawyer Houston challenges every piece of circumstantial intent evidence the state relies on, one item at a time.
Drug delivery is a subset of drug crimes under the Texas Health & Safety Code, one tier above simple possession — see the drug possession defense page for how the state distinguishes personal-use possession from a delivery allegation in the first place. Delivery carries a higher charge level than possession for the same substance and weight, and delivery near a drug-free zone or with a prior conviction pushes the case further still — see the felony drug charges page for how those enhancements stack. For the Penalty Group framework and the full spectrum of drug charges, see the drug crimes defense overview. For large-quantity charges that cross into federal court, see the drug trafficking defense page for how federal mandatory minimums apply and how Herman defends in U.S. District Court. A drug distribution lawyer Houston distinguishes delivery from the higher trafficking tier immediately, since the quantity threshold changes the entire exposure.
Can Police Keep Cash and Property Seized in a Drug Distribution Case?
Often, yes — and this happens through a process entirely separate from the criminal charge. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 59 allows the state to pursue civil asset forfeiture of cash, vehicles, and other property connected to an alleged drug offense, in a proceeding that runs independently of the criminal case and uses only a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard — no criminal conviction is required for the state to keep seized property. This means a client can potentially face a weak criminal case while still losing seized cash or a vehicle in the parallel civil action, unless that forfeiture is separately contested within its own deadline. Herman evaluates any Chapter 59 forfeiture notice alongside the criminal charge from the start, since the two proceedings move on different tracks and a missed forfeiture deadline can mean losing property permanently even after the criminal case is won.
What Is the Difference Between Delivery and Manufacturing Under Texas Law?
Delivery under §481.112 and manufacturing under §481.113 and §481.114 are separate offenses that are frequently confused but carry meaningfully different evidentiary requirements and, in many circumstances, different exposure. Manufacturing covers the production, cultivation, or compounding of a controlled substance — running a clandestine lab, growing marijuana plants past a personal-use threshold, or converting one substance into another — while delivery covers only the transfer of an already-existing substance from one person to another. Because manufacturing charges often arise from the same search that produces a delivery or possession allegation, defendants sometimes face multiple charges from a single incident: manufacturing for the production equipment or grow operation found on the property, delivery for any distributed product, and possession for whatever remains on hand. Each charge requires the state to independently prove its specific elements, and evidence sufficient for one does not automatically establish another. A drug distribution lawyer Houston reviews every charge stemming from a single search separately, since a weakness in the manufacturing evidence does not necessarily undermine a delivery charge, and vice versa.
Frequently Asked Questions — Drug Distribution Defense
Below are the most frequently asked questions about drug delivery and distribution charges in Harris County — covering the standard of proof, informant challenges, entrapment, penalties, and record clearing.
Delivery requires an actual transfer — completed or attempted. Possession with intent to deliver (PWID) requires no transaction: the state only needs to prove you possessed drugs and intended to distribute them. PWID relies on circumstantial evidence like quantity, packaging, and cash. Both carry the same penalty range under Texas law.
Yes. Texas law makes no distinction between the principal seller and a person who merely facilitates the transaction. A go-between can be charged with delivery. However, your specific role — your knowledge, your relationship to the parties, and any benefit you received — all affect both your exposure and your available defenses.
Distribution charges can be reduced to possession when the state cannot prove delivery intent — specifically when the quantity is consistent with personal use, no transaction was observed, and no packaging, scales, or other distribution indicia are present. Herman negotiates reduction by attacking each piece of circumstantial evidence the state relies on to establish delivery intent. A drug distribution lawyer Houston negotiates these reductions by systematically attacking each indicium of delivery intent.
The state proves intent through circumstantial evidence — drug quantity, separate baggies or packaged units, digital scales, large cash amounts, text messages referencing sales, and witness statements. Herman challenges each piece individually: alternative explanations for cash, innocent purposes for scales, and personal use amounts for the quantity involved.
Yes — Harris County operates drug diversion programs for qualifying first-time defendants on lower-level delivery charges. Completing the program — which includes drug education, supervision, and a clean record period — results in a dismissed charge that is then eligible for expunction. Delivery charges face higher scrutiny than simple possession. Herman evaluates every client for program eligibility on the first call. See the first-time drug offense page for the specific diversion and deferred adjudication tracks available before any prior conviction exists.
Penalties depend on the Penalty Group and quantity. Delivering under 1g of a PG1 substance (cocaine, heroin, meth, fentanyl) is a state jail felony (180 days–2 years). Delivering 1g–4g is a 2nd-degree felony (2–20 years). Delivering 4g–200g is a 1st-degree felony (5–99 years). Delivery near a school zone enhances the charge by one degree.
Yes — and it is one of the most effective defenses. CIs cooperate in exchange for leniency on their own charges, making their credibility inherently suspect. Herman demands full disclosure of the CI's criminal history, cooperation agreements, and prior record of providing information. Unreliable informants can destroy the prosecution's case. A drug distribution lawyer Houston demands full informant disclosure in every case built on confidential source testimony.
Entrapment is when government agents induce a person to commit a crime they would not otherwise have committed. It is particularly relevant in online drug sting operations and cases where an informant repeatedly pressured the defendant. Herman evaluates every distribution case for entrapment potential under Texas Penal Code §8.06.
A conviction cannot be expunged, but deferred adjudication may be available for some delivery charges — and after completion, a non-disclosure order can seal the record from most background checks. If the charge is dismissed, full expunction is available. Herman focuses on dismissal or deferred adjudication as the primary goals. A drug distribution lawyer Houston focuses on dismissal or deferred adjudication precisely because a conviction can never be expunged.
Yes. If police conducted an illegal search — without a valid warrant or recognized exception — the drugs can be suppressed. No drugs means no delivery charge. Herman challenges the legality of every search and seizure, examining affidavits, warrant applications, and whether the officer's stated basis for the search was truthful. A drug distribution lawyer Houston examines every warrant and affidavit for the truthfulness the Fourth Amendment requires.