Texas Manufacture or Delivery of Penalty Group 3/4 Drugs — § 481.114

Making, delivering, or possessing with intent to deliver a Penalty Group 3 or 4 drug — Xanax, Valium, Ritalin, cough syrup — is always a felony under Health & Safety Code § 481.114. Below: the verified statute text, the weight-graded punishment ladder, defense theories that work, and how cases run in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant County.

Peer Recognition

Martindale-Hubbell® 2026 Honors

Independent peer-review ratings recognizing legal ability and ethical standards.

Awards reflect peer-reviewed ratings only. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

The controlling statute

Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.114 provides that "a person commits an offense if the person knowingly manufactures, delivers, or possesses with intent to deliver a controlled substance listed in Penalty Group 3 or 4," except as authorized by the Texas Controlled Substances Act. One section carries three separate theories — making the drug, transferring it, and holding it with intent to transfer — and the State may pursue any of them from the same set of facts. The statute completes the manufacture-delivery set alongside § 481.112 (Penalty Group 1) and § 481.113 (Penalty Group 2).

Section 481.114 dates to the 1989 codification of the Controlled Substances Act (Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678), took its modern weight ladder in the 1993–2001 amendments, and was most recently touched by House Bill 6 — the 88th Legislature’s 2023 package — effective September 1, 2023. Two structural points matter before anything else: every tier of § 481.114 is a felony, and the grade turns entirely on aggregate weight, not on the number of pills, the purity of the drug, or whether money changed hands.

Which Drugs Fall in Penalty Group 3 and Penalty Group 4?

Penalty Group 3, defined in § 481.104, is the prescription-pill group. It covers the benzodiazepine family — alprazolam (Xanax), diazepam (Valium), clonazepam (Klonopin), lorazepam (Ativan), chlordiazepoxide, triazolam, and the designer analog etizolam — along with the "Z-drug" sleep aids zolpidem (Ambien), zaleplon, and zopiclone. The same list reaches, the muscle relaxer carisoprodol (Soma), pentazocine, barbiturates such as pentobarbital, secobarbital, and amobarbital, and a stimulant prong that names methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) and phenmetrazine. A separate subsection sweeps in anabolic steroids — any drug or hormonal substance chemically or pharmacologically related to testosterone that promotes muscle growth — which is why gym-supplier cases are charged under the same statute as Xanax cases.

Penalty Group 3 also includes limited-quantity narcotic compounds: at not more than 1.8 grams per 100 milliliters or 90 milligrams per dosage unit combined with therapeutic nonnarcotic ingredients, and dihydrocodeinone at not more than 300 milligrams per 100 milliliters or 15 milligrams per dosage unit in combination products. Penalty Group 4, defined in § 481.105, is narrower: compounds containing limited narcotic quantities plus one or more nonnarcotic active medicinal ingredients "in sufficient proportion to confer … valuable medicinal qualities" beyond the narcotic alone — the textbook example is prescription promethazine- cough syrup at not more than 200 milligrams of per 100 milliliters.

The trap inside these definitions: the same molecule changes penalty groups with its formulation. above the concentration limits is "not listed in Penalty Group 3" and falls into Penalty Group 1 under § 481.102(3)(A); so does outside the PG 3/4 compound limits. A pharmacist-grade question — what else is in the mixture, and in what proportion — can swing the case between a § 481.114 charge and the far harsher PG 1 ladder. Run any fact pattern through our Drug Penalty Group Calculator to see how classification drives the range.

What Are the Penalties for Manufacture or Delivery of PG 3/4 Drugs?

Read the ladder closely and one anomaly jumps out: § 481.114 skips the third-degree felony entirely. Crossing the 28-gram line moves a case straight from a state jail felony to a second-degree felony — the floor jumps from 180 days to two years, and the ceiling from two years to twenty. Because aggregate weight counts whole tablets and whole liquids, that cliff arrives faster than most people expect: a few hundred pills, or a fraction of one cough-syrup bottle, can cross it. Confinement ranges for the first three tiers come from Penal Code §§ 12.32–12.35; the 400-gram tier carries its own enhanced range written directly into § 481.114(e).

Location can move every number above. Under § 481.134, a § 481.114 offense committed in a drug-free zone — generally within 1,000 feet of a school, youth center, or playground — is punished one degree higher at the state-jail and lower felony tiers, while the (c), (d), and (e) tiers take a five-year increase to the minimum term and a doubled maximum fine. Our drug-free zone enhancement page maps the zones and the proof problems. On the other side of the ledger, the state-jail tier carries a negotiation lever: Penal Code § 12.44 lets a court punish — or, with the prosecutor’s consent, prosecute — a state jail felony as a Class A misdemeanor.

Elements the State must prove

To convict under § 481.114, the State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. A knowing culpable mental state

The defendant acted knowingly — aware of the nature of the substance and of the conduct — under Penal Code § 6.03. Accident, mistake, and ignorance of what a package contained all attack this element.

2. Manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to deliver

Three alternative manner-and-means. "Manufacture" under § 481.002(25) reaches compounding, packaging, repackaging, and labeling — not just synthesis. "Delivery" under § 481.002(8) reaches actual transfer, constructive transfer, and a bare offer to sell.

3. A substance listed in Penalty Group 3 or 4

Classification is an element. For compound drugs such as syrup, the State must prove the formulation — concentration and the presence of therapeutic nonnarcotic ingredients — not merely the narcotic’s identity.

4. The aggregate weight band

Weight including adulterants and dilutants fixes the felony tier, so the lab’s scale work is itself an element of the offense the jury must find.

5. Absence of authorization

The conduct fell outside the Act’s authorizations — the registrations, prescriptions, and practitioner channels that lawfully move these drugs.

What Counts as "Delivery"? The Offer-to-Sell Trap

Section 481.002(8) defines "deliver" as transferring a controlled substance "actually or constructively" to another "regardless of whether there is an agency relationship" — and then adds the clause that surprises defendants: "[t]he term includes offering to sell a controlled substance." A gift counts. Leaving pills in an agreed spot for pickup counts (constructive transfer). And words alone can count: in Stewart v. State, 718 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that delivery by offer to sell "is complete when, by words or deed, a person knowingly or intentionally offers to sell what he states is a controlled substance" — no transfer need take place, and the defendant "need not even have any controlled substance." A text message offering to sell thirty Xanax bars is, on the State’s theory, a completed delivery the moment it is sent.

The Legislature built one safeguard into that breadth. Under § 481.183(a), proof of an offer to sell must be corroborated by a person other than the offeree or by evidence other than the offeree’s statement — the undercover officer’s word alone cannot carry the conviction. In practice the corroboration fight turns on whether the State has something independent: drugs or access to drugs, a second witness, or a recording of the exchange. When the entire case is one witness recounting one conversation, § 481.183(a) is the first motion to write.

How Do Prosecutors Prove Manufacture or Delivery?

Most § 481.114 files in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant County are built one of three ways: a controlled buy through an undercover officer or confidential informant, a traffic stop or search warrant that yields distribution-quantity pills, or a phone extraction that surfaces sale conversations. When no transfer happened, intent to deliver is proved circumstantially — quantity beyond personal use, baggies or unlabeled pill bottles, scales, ledger notes, multiple phones, large unexplained cash, and the absence of use paraphernalia. Each of those inferences can be answered, and a prescription bottle with the defendant’s own name on it cuts the other way.

On weight, the State’s friend is Seals v. State, 187 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005): any substance "added to or mixed with a controlled substance, regardless of when, how, or why," may count toward aggregate weight as an adulterant or dilutant. Whole-tablet weight controls in pill cases and whole-liquid weight controls in syrup cases. The defense answer is precision — what did the chemist actually test, what was weighed versus extrapolated, and where does the "mixture" end? Field tests are presumptive only, and pills are routinely misidentified before laboratory confirmation; resolving a case before the lab report exists means pleading to a weight and a substance nobody has verified.

What Defenses Work Against a § 481.114 Charge?

L and L Law Group builds defense around the statute’s own pressure points:

• Suppression. Drug cases live and die on the stop, the sniff, the warrant, and the search. Evidence obtained illegally is excluded under the Fourth Amendment and Code of Criminal Procedure art. 38.23, and without the pills there is no case.
• No knowing possession or link. Pills in a shared car or apartment require affirmative links to the accused — proximity alone is not possession, and knowledge of what a container held is the State’s burden.
• Offer-to-sell corroboration failure. § 481.183(a) bars conviction on the offeree’s uncorroborated account — decisive in single-witness sting cases.
• Weight and aggregation attacks. Contest what was tested, what was weighed, and what truly counts as the mixture under Seals; a few grams near the 28-gram or 200-gram line is the difference of a decade.
• Penalty-group misclassification. Compound drugs demand composition proof; concentration and therapeutic-ingredient evidence can move a case between PG 1, PG 3, and PG 4 — or unravel the State’s grading entirely.
• Entrapment. Penal Code § 8.06 applies when law enforcement induced the offense by persuasion likely to cause an otherwise unwilling person to commit it — a live issue in informant-driven pill stings.
• Chain of custody and analyst confrontation. The State must connect the seized pills to the tested pills and produce the analyst whose work grades the felony.
• Authorization. Prescriptions, practitioner status, and registrant channels take conduct outside the Act — narrow, but dispositive where it fits.

Prescription-Diversion Prosecutions: When Pills Become a Felony

A growing share of PG 3/4 dockets is diversion, not street dealing: the patient who sells part of a monthly alprazolam fill, the employee who moves pills out of a pharmacy or clinic, the student passing Ritalin at exam time. The prescription protects the patient’s possession only — the moment the medication moves to another person, the transfer is an unauthorized delivery, and § 481.114’s ladder applies at full strength. Forged or doctored prescriptions are typically charged separately as prescription fraud under § 481.129, often stacked on the delivery count.

-syrup cases — the "lean" docket — show how technical penalty-group proof gets. In Miles v. State, 357 S.W.3d 629, 637–38 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that to convict for the harsher Penalty Group 1 offense the State had to prove the substance was "not listed in Penalty Group 3 or 4" — by showing either a concentration above 1.8 grams per 100 milliliters or the absence of therapeutic nonnarcotic ingredients — and that the mere presence of promethazine, without evidence of its therapeutic proportion, left the proof short. The lesson for the defense runs in every direction: formulation evidence, not the drug’s name, fixes the penalty group, and a chemist who never analyzed the compound’s composition has not graded the offense.

Can a PG 3/4 Manufacture-Delivery Charge Be Dismissed or Expunged?

Outright dismissals happen where the case’s machinery fails: a suppression win that excludes the drugs, a corroboration gap in an offer-to-sell case, a lab report that contradicts the alleged substance or weight, or a grand jury no-bill. Short of dismissal, the structure of the drug chapter gives the defense a built-in target — negotiating a § 481.114 count down to simple possession under §§ 481.117–.118 changes the offense from a no-misdemeanor statute to one with misdemeanor grades, and at the state-jail tier Penal Code § 12.44 can produce misdemeanor-level punishment even without a reduction. Deferred adjudication under Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 42A resolves many first-offense files without a conviction if successfully completed.

Records relief follows the outcome. Expunction under Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 55A is available after acquittal, dismissal, or no-bill — never after a conviction. A successfully completed deferred adjudication can support a petition for nondisclosure under Government Code § 411.0725 after the statutory waiting period, subject to history-based disqualifiers. The sequencing decision — what disposition preserves which remedy — belongs at the front of the case, not the end; our expunction and record-sealing team works that question alongside the trial defense.

County-by-County Practice in North Texas

Collin County. Every § 481.114 case is a felony, so Frisco, Plano, and McKinney arrests are indicted and heard in the district courts at the Collin County Courthouse, 2100 Bloomdale Road in McKinney. Cases move through DA intake and grand jury presentment before arraignment, and laboratory turnaround — not court settings — usually sets the case’s real tempo. Frisco itself straddles the Collin–Denton line, so the offense address, not the city, decides which county prosecutes.

Dallas County. Felony drug cases are heard at the Frank Crowley Courts Building on Riverfront Boulevard. The volume of the Dallas felony docket cuts both ways: more room to negotiate alternative dispositions, but slower lab work and longer pendency — which makes early bond-condition management and discovery demands under art. 39.14 matter more.

Denton County. Indictments land in the district courts at the Denton County Courts Building in Denton. Lewisville, Flower Mound, and The Colony arrests — and the Denton-side slice of Frisco — route here, and pill cases out of traffic interdiction on I-35E are a steady feature of the docket.

Tarrant County. Felony drug prosecutions run through the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center in Fort Worth. As elsewhere, the practical fights are weight verification, search legality, and the availability of deferred resolutions for defendants with clean histories.

What Happens After a § 481.114 Arrest? Case Timeline

1. Arrest and book-in — often the end of a buy-bust or interdiction stop rather than the start of the investigation; phones and cash are commonly seized with the pills.
2. Magistration within 48 hours — a magistrate gives statutory warnings under Code of Criminal Procedure art. 15.17 and sets bond.
3. Bond and conditions — felony schedules apply; expect drug-testing conditions, and act early to modify terms that threaten work or school.
4. DA intake and grand jury — every tier of § 481.114 requires an indictment; this window is where reductions, declinations, and grand-jury packets are won.
5. Arraignment and discovery — the Michael Morton Act, art. 39.14, compels production of offense reports, lab files, and informant material.
6. Laboratory confirmation — the report that actually fixes substance and weight often arrives months in; the charged tier is frequently re-graded after it lands.
7. Pretrial motions — suppression, corroboration challenges under § 481.183(a), and composition-proof attacks come first.
8. Resolution — dismissal, reduction, deferred adjudication, trial — sequenced against the records-relief consequences described above.

Enhancements & collateral consequences

Beyond the drug-free-zone escalation under § 481.134, prior felony convictions raise the range through Penal Code chapter 12’s habitual-offender provisions, and cash, vehicles, and phones tied to alleged dealing face civil forfeiture under Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 59 — a parallel case that proceeds even when the criminal charge falters. A final drug conviction suspends the defendant’s driver’s license under Transportation Code § 521.372. A felony conviction strips firearm rights under Penal Code § 46.04 and federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Licensed professionals — nurses, teachers, physicians, commercial drivers — face board discipline layered on top of the criminal case, and for non-citizens a controlled-substance delivery conviction is among the most damaging outcomes in immigration law. Housing and employment screens treat delivery convictions far more harshly than possession. These consequences, not the jail range, often drive the defense strategy.

How § 481.114 Differs From Neighboring Drug Statutes

Charging decisions in pill cases usually pick among a half-dozen adjacent statutes, and the differences are stark. Section 481.112 (PG 1) runs the same conduct on a far harsher ladder — four grams of a PG 1 already reaches the first-degree band, while the same four grams of PG 3 pills sits at the state-jail floor. Section 481.113 (PG 2) covers the hallucinogen and THC-concentrate group. Simple possession of PG 3/4 substances falls under §§ 481.117–.118 — see our PG 3 possession and PG 4 possession pages — with misdemeanor grades § 481.114 never offers. Marijuana delivery has its own statute, § 481.120, graded by ounces rather than grams. Separate transfers can be combined into one aggregate charge when they are part of the same scheme — the mechanics are on our drug-weight aggregation page — and the 2023 legislation that last amended this section built a separate, harsher track for analogs; see . Finally, prescription medicines that sit in no penalty group at all are prosecuted under the dangerous-drug chapter, Health & Safety Code chapter 483, at much lower grades — another reason classification fights pay.

Two Hypothetical Scenarios

Hypothetical example — not a real case. A college sophomore texts an acquaintance offering to sell "30 bars" of Xanax for $150 and is arrested at the meetup carrying no pills at all. Under Stewart and § 481.002(8), the offer itself is the delivery, so the absence of drugs is no defense to the charge — but § 481.183(a) requires the State to corroborate the offer with more than the buyer’s account, and whether the text thread, standing alone, corroborates an in-person offer becomes the case’s central fight.

Hypothetical example — not a real case. A patient with a legitimate promethazine- prescription pours half the bottle for a roommate. The syrup is Penalty Group 4, the pour is a delivery, and because aggregate weight counts the entire liquid, an eight-ounce bottle — roughly 240 milliliters, weighing well over 200 grams — means even a partial transfer can be indicted in the 28-to-200-gram second-degree band, and a full-bottle transfer can reach the 200-gram first-degree tier. What feels like sharing medicine is, on paper, a prison-range felony.