NO. 03-14-00818-CR
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS CLINTON DAVID BECK,

Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee Appealed from the 207th District Court Comal County, Texas BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT
ZIMMERMANN LAVINE & ZIMMERMANN, P.C. 770 South Post Oak Lane, Suite 620 Houston, Texas 77056 (713) 552-0300 * (713) 552-0746 fax TERRI R. ZIMMERMANN State Bar No. 00797883 Terri.Zimmermann@ZLZSlaw.com JACK B. ZIMMERMANN State Bar No. 22266500 Jack.Zimmermann@ZLZSlaw.com Attorneys for the Appellant, CLINTON DAVID BECK THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT ACCEPTED 03-14-00818-CR 4576568 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/20/2015 10:45:46 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKIDENTI TY OF PART IES AND COUNSEL

Pu rsu an t to T E X . R. A P P . P. 38 .1(a ), a compl ete list of the na mes of al l interes ted partie s is provided be low : The Appella nt: Mr. C lintonDa vid Beck Cou nse l for Cl intonDa vid Beck: Ms . Terri R. Zim merma nn (o n the w rit an d appea l only ) Mr. Ja ck B. Zimmerm ann Zimme rma nn La vine &Zimmerm ann, P.C
. 77 0 So uthPo st O akLane , Suite 6 20 Hou sto n, Texa s 7 70 56 Mr. Ro bert M . “M att” Kyle ( tria l only ) The Kyle La wFirm 70 7 N. W al nu t Avenu e NewBrau nfels , Texa s 781 30 Cou nse l for the State: Mr. Jo shu a D . Pres ley (o n the w rit an d appea l only ) Ms . Jennif er C. Smith (tria l only ) Com alCou nty D istric t Attorn ey’ s O ffice 15 0 N. Segu in Ave , Suite 3 07 NewBrau nfels , Texa s 781 30 -5 12 2

iTAB LE OF CONTENTS PAGE

IDENT ITY O F PA RTIES AND COU NSEL.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i TA BLE OF CON TENT S.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii INDEXOF AU THO RITIES.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v STAT EMENTOF T HE CASE.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STAT EMENTREGARD ING ORA L ARGUM ENT.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ISSUES PRESENTED
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 GENERAL STA TEM ENT O F FAC TS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 SUM MA RY OF THE ARG UM ENT.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ARGU MENT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ISSUE ONE.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 THE TRI AL COURT REVERSIBLY ERRED BY DENYING MR. BECK’ S APPLICAT ION FOR WRI T OF HABEAS C O R PU S BECAUSE THE EVI DENCE IS LE GALLY INSUF FI CIENT TO SUSTAI N A CONVI CTI ON IN THI S CASE; NO RATI ONAL FI NDER OF FACT COULD FI ND THAT MR. BECK ACTED WI TH UNLAWFUL I NTENT. STAT EMENTOF FA CT S PERT INENT T O ISSUE ONE.
. . . . . . . . . . . 9 ARGU MENTAND AUT HORIT IES I N SUP PO RT O F ISSUE ONE.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A. Standa rd of Revie w .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

iiPAGE

B. The Statu te of C onvi ctionRequi red an U nla w fu l Intent..
. . . . 11 C. The State Aba ndoned an d Pres ented No Evidence of Unla w fu l Inte nt – T he Evidence is Lega lly Insu ffici ent..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 D. Conclu sio n.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ISSUE TWO
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 THE TRI AL COURT REVERSIBLY ERRED BY DENYING MR. BECK’ S APPLICAT ION FOR WRI T OF H A B EAS CORPUS B E C A U S E T H E S T A T U T E U P O N W H I C H T H I S CONVI CTI ON RESTS IS UNCONSTI TUT IONA L AND WA S A NULLI TY AB IN

ITI O . STAT EMENTOF FA CT S PERT INENT T O ISSUE TW O.
. . . . . . . . . . 14 ARGU MENTAND AUT HORIT IES I N SUP PO RT O F ISSUE TWO
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A. Standa rd of Revie w .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 B. The Insta nt Co nvicti on Re lies Exclus ively o n the Viola tion o f anInval id Statu te; therefo re, the Tri al Cou rt Erred in Denying Ha bea s Re lief..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1. Section33 .02 1(b) is Unco nsti tuti ona l..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2. Mr. Beck’s Convictio n an d Sentence Are D efec tive a nd Void..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C. Conclu sio n.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 CON CLUSION A ND PRAYER.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
iiiCERT IFICAT E OF CO MP LIANCE.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

CERT IFICAT E OF SERVICE.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

ivI NDEX OF AUTHORI TI E S PAGE Sta te Ca se s ExPar te Ch anc e, 2 0 1 4 W L 1 7 9 6 6 4 8 (T ex. Crim. App. 2 01 4 )
. . . . . . . . 1 6, 1 7, 1 9 ExPar te Coop er, 2 0 1 4 W L1 8 71 72 2(T ex. Crim. App. 2 0 1 4 ) .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 ExPar te Downs , 2 0 1 4 W L 2 6 0 9 72 3 (T ex. Crim. App. 2 0 1 4 ) .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 Exp ar te Hol l owe ll , No. 0 3 -1 1 -0 0 240 -CR, 2 0 1 2W L 1 9 59 3 0 9 (T ex. App. Ju ne 1 , 2 0 1 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0, 1 1 , 1 4 Exp ar te Lewi s , 2 19 S.W .3 d 3 3 5 (T ex. Crim. App. 2 0 0 7)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Exp ar te Lo , 4 24 S.W .3 d 1 0 (T ex. Crim. App. 2 0 1 3 )), reh 'gde ni e d, (M a r. 1 9 , 2 0 1 4 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 1 5 , 1 6 Exp ar te Mar ti n , 6 S.W
. 3 d 5 24 (T ex. Crim. App. 1 9 99 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 ExPar te Pe te rson , 1 1 7S.W .3 d 8 0 4 (T ex. Crim. App. 2 0 0 3 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Exp ar te Rod rig uez-Gri mal do , No. 0 3 -1 2 -0 0 0 19 -CR, 2 0 1 3 W L 2 6 3 16 2 9 (T ex. App. Ju ne 5 , 2 0 1 3).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 ExPar te Wh e el e r, 2 0 3 S.W .3 d 3 1 7(T ex. Crim. App. 2 0 0 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 ExPar te Wi l l i ams , 2 01 4 W L 2 5 2 7 78 7(T ex. Crim. App. 2 0 1 4).
. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 ExPar te Zav al a , 4 2 1 S.W .3 d2 2 7 (T ex. App. – Sa n Antonio 2 0 1 3 ).
. . . . . . . . 1 8 Fre e man v . State, 4 25 S.W
. 3 d 2 8 9 (T ex. Crim. App. 2 0 1 4 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 Fre e man v . State, No. 0 5 -1 2 -0 0 9 2 3 -CR, 2 0 1 4 W L 6 6 0 26 9 1 (T ex. App. Nov. 2 1 , 2 0 1 4 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 Rav enbark v . State, 9 4 2 S.W .2 d 7 1 1 (T ex. App. – Hou s ton [1 4 th D is t.] 1 9 9 7, no pet.) .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9

vPAGE

Reye s v . State, 75 3 S.W
. 2 d 3 8 2(T ex. Crim. App. 1 9 8 8 )).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 Sande rs v . State, 2 0 1 4 W L 8 87 78 1 (T ex. App. – T exa rka na2 0 1 4 ).
. . . . . . . . . 1 8 Schus te r v . State, 4 3 5 S.W .3 d 3 6 2(T ex. App. – Hou s ton [1 s t D is t.] 2 01 4 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 Th omas v . State, 4 4 4 S.W .3 d 4(T ex. Crim. App. 2 0 1 4)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Fe de r a l Ca se s Jacks on v . Vi r

g i ni a , 4 4 3 U.S. 3 0 7(1 9 7 9).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Reye s– Re que na v . Uni te dState s , 24 3 F.3 d8 9 3 (5 th Cir. 2 0 0 1)..
. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7

Constitutions, Sta tute s, a nd Rule s T ex. P ena l Code Ann. § 2 1 .1 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 T ex. P ena l Code Ann. § 3 3 .0 2 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 , 1 2 T E X . R. A P P . P
. 9.4 (1 )(3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 T E X . R. A P P . P
. 38 .1 (a ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

v iNO. 03 -1 4- 00 81 8- CR
IN THE THI RD COURT OF APPEALS

AUST IN, TEXA S
CLINTON DAV ID BECK,

Appel la nt v. THE STATE OF TEX AS,

Appel le e Appea le d fr om the 20 7th Distr ict Court Coma l County, Te xa s
BRI EF FOR THE APPELLANT
TOTHE HON ORA BLE COURTOF AP PEALS: COM ES NOW C LI N T O N DA VID BECK, the Appella nt in the ab ovesty led an d numb ered ca us e, an d files this Brieffor the A ppella nt. STATEM ENT OF THE CASE Thi s is a direct a p p e a l fr om the tria l cou rt’s denia l of relief from the Applica tion for Writ of Hab ea s Corpu s tha t Mr. Beck filed purs ua nt to Section 11 .072 o f the Co de of Cri mina l Pro cedu re.In la te 20 10 , Mr. Beck, a middle sc hoo l hea lth tea cher an d coa ch in New

Brau nfels , w as inves tiga ted ba sed on text mes sa ges he sent to one of his stu dents
. The inves tiga tion resu lted in his arre st an d he w as cha rged in Ca u s e No. CR2 01 1- 19 7 w ith tw o offe nse s: Onlin e Solicita tion of a Mi nor, C o u n t I ; a n d e n g a g i n g i n a n Im p r o p e r R e l a t i o n s h i p Be t w e e n Educa tor/Stu dent, Cou nt II. Origina l Indictment a t Clk. R. 4- 5. The re w as 1

no a llega tion o f unla w fu l tou ching
. On Septemb er 26 , 20 11 , Mr. Beck plea ded gu ilty to Cou nt II, Improper Rela tions hip Betw een Educa tor/Stu dent, an d the State dismis sed the Onlin e Solicita tion cha rged in Cou nt I. Ju dgments at Clk. R. 15 -2 0. On Nove mbe r 7, 20 11 the tria l cou rt sentence d Mr. Beck to ten yea rs in the Institu tiona l Di vis ion of th e Texa s De partm ent of Crimin al Ju stic e, su spen ded the
confineme nt for ten yea rs, an d fined him $2 ,00 0.0 0. Id
. M r . Beck did not appe alhis c onvi ction
. On Septemb er 4, 20 14 , Mr. Beck filed his Applica tion for Writ of Hab ea s Corpu s. Clk. R. 21
. The tria l c o u r t h e ld a hea ring on Octo ber 21 , 20 14
. The

The Cl erk’s Rec or d i s contained in one or iginal vo lume and one s up p l e mental 1 vo lume, cited as “Clk. R. Page Numb er” and “Sup p. Clk. R. Page Numb er,” respectively
. For example, “Clk. R. 1.” The cour t r e p or ter ’s recor d from the writ hearing is in one vo lume c ited as “Rptr . R. Page Number.” Forexample, “Rptr . R. 1.” 2State su bmitt ed to the tria l cou rt propos ed Finding s of Fa ct an d Conclu sio ns

of Law , an d the tria l cou rt signed them al ong w ith an Order denying relief on Nove mbe r 24 , 20 14
. Clk. R. 28 -3 2. Mr. Beck’s cou nse l receiv ed the order on De cemb er 11 , 20 14 , a n d filed by ma il Ob jection s to the Finding s an d Conclu sio ns on De cemb er 18 , 20 14
. Clk. R. 33
- 3 9
. T h e tria l cou rt did not 2

w ithdra wor a mend a ny ofthe Finding s o r Conclu sio ns. 3 Mr. Beck timely filed his Notic e of Appea l on De cemb er 22 , 20 14
. Clk. 4 R. 40 -4 1. STATEM ENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUM ENT Mr. Beck respe ctfu lly reque sts ora l argum ent. The iss ue s invo lved in this ca se are nove l an d prese nt qu esti ons o f firs t impres sio n in the State. Beca us e there are no ca ses directly on point un der the exac t sa me fa ct patte rn,
ora l argum ent w ou ld fa cilita te an d ai d this C ou rt’s decis iona l proces s by

Although couns el mailed and emailed the document on December 18, 2014, 2 it was not officially filed until Dec ember 29, 2014, presumably due to the holidays.

The tr i a l court’s Court Adminis tr ator called the undersigned couns el on 3 December 19 to inform her thathe had hand ed the Obj ections to the judge and the judge denied relief. Again, there was a slight delay between the mailing of the document and its

4 officialfiling. 3al low ing cou nse l the opportu nity t o an sw er any qu esti ons tha t the Cou rt

might ha ve tha t are n ot a dequ ate ly co vered in the pa rties ’ Briefs
. ISSUES PRESENTED Mr. Beckrais es th e foll ow ing is su es f or a ppella te review : ISSUE ONE THE TRI AL COURT REVERSIBLY ERRED BY DENYING MR. BECK’ S APPLICAT ION FOR WRI T OF HABEAS C O R PU S BECAUSE THE EVI DENCE IS LE GALLY INSUF FI CIENT TO SUSTAI N A CONVI CTI ON IN THI S CASE; NO RATI ONAL FI NDER OF FACT COULD FI ND THAT MR. BECK ACTED WI TH UNLAWFUL I NTENT. ISSUE TWO THE TRI AL COURT REVERSIBLY ERRED BY DENYING MR. BECK’ S APPLICAT ION FOR WR I T OF HABEAS CORPUS B E C A U S E T H E S T A T U T E U P O N W H I C H T H I S CONVI CTI ON RESTS IS UNCONSTI TUT IONA L AND WA S A NULLI TY AB IN

ITI O . GENERAL STATEMENT OF FA CTS As sta ted ab ove, in la te 2 0 1 0 , Mr. Beck w as a middle sc hoo l hea lth tea cher an d coa ch in New Brau nfels , Texa s. Offens e Report, State ’ s Exhibit 2 from Ple a Hea ring. He w as i nv e s t i g ate d an d cha rged ba sed on text 5

The Transcript from the plea hearing that too k place on September 26, 2011 5 as well as State’s Exhibit 2 (the offense repo rt) were not or iginally designated for filing with this Court
. Undersigned couns el has requested that the court repo rt er and Dis tr ict Clerk, 4mes sa ges he sent to o n e o f his stu dents tha t the State bel ieved w ere

ina ppropria te. Origina l Indictment at Clk. R. 4- 5. How ever, the text mes sa ges did not contai n any so licita tion of the stu dent to perform any phys ica l ac t, an d there w as never any al lega tion of any unla w fu l tou ching
. Mr. Beck reso lved the cha rges ag ai nst him by plea ding gu ilty to Improper Rela tions hip Betw een Educa tor an d Stu dent in viola ti o n o f S e c tion 21 .12 of the Texa s Pen al Code; the State dismis sed the Onlin e Solicita tion cou nt u n de r Section 33 .02 1(b) of the Texa s Pen al C o de
. J u dg ments at Clk. R. 15 -2 0. He is cu rrently
su cces sfu lly s ervinghis te n yea r proba ted sentence
. Undersigne d cou nse l did not repres ent Mr. Beck at the time tha t the tri al
cou rt ac cepted his plea an d sentence d him to prob ati on. Whe n she w as hired to repres ent him on ha bea s, she reque sted a compl ete co p y o f the Di stric t Clerk’s file. Clk. R. 42
. In respo nse , she receiv ed a copy of the origin al indictme nt in this ca se. It did not contai n any pen an d ink cha nges or other
am endments
. The al lega tion in Cou nt II u n de r Section 21 .12 in the origin al indictme nt contai ned a ll of therequ ired elements o f tha t sta tute
.

respectively , file these documents as s oon as possible w ith this Court
. 5At the hea ring on the Applica tion, Mr. Beck argue d tha t his convictio n

w as void bec au se the Cou rt of Crimin al Appea ls inva lidate d the un derlying sta tute upo n w hich th e convictio n w as ba sed. Rptr. R. 5, 7, 33 -3 7. The State
su bmitt ed Pro pos ed Finding s of Fa ct and Conclu sio ns of Law an d an Order denying relief, w hich the tria l cou rt signed. Clk. R. 27 -3 2. Mr. Beck ob jected to tho se F indings and C onc lu sio ns, b as ed prima rily ontwo grou nds: 6 1. Sub seq ue nt to the hea ring bu t immedia tely prior to filing Ob jection s, Mr. Beck’ s cou nse l disco vered tha t at the plea hea ring, the State ha d deleted al l la ngu ag e in the indictme nt perta ining to the intent element of the offe nse . In additio n, there w as no evidenc e to su pport tha t e l ement an d the tria l
cou rt’s Fin di n gs an d Conclu sio ns perta ining to Mr. Beck’ s intent w ere compl etely w ithou t fa ctu al su pport in the reco rd, since the only evidenc e tha t exists i s th a t h e h ad a la w fu l intent at the time he sent the mes sa ges . The ab sence of any al lega tion or proof of the unlaw fu l in t e nt element jus tified gra nting o f ha bea s reli ef.

Mr
. Beck objected to additional Findings and Conclus ions as be i ng 6 uns upporte d by the recor d, and r espectfu lly incorpor ates those objections into this Br i e f as further ev idence of the trial court’s err oneous Findings and Conclu sions. 62
. Even ha d the indictme nt bee n va lid, un der the un dispu ted fa cts of

th i s ca se (text mes sa ges only ; no so licita tion an d no unla w fu l tou ching) th e
conv i ction rests so lely upo n an al lega tion tha t Mr. Beck’ s con duc t viola ted S e ction 33 .02 1(b) of the Texa s Pen al Code, w hich the Cou rt of C r i m i n a l Appea ls held uncon stitu tiona l. Ex pa rte Lo , 4 2 4 S
. W
. 3 d 1 0 (Te x. C rim. App. 20 13 ), reh' g de ni ed, (M ar. 19 , 20 14 ). The refore , Mr. Beck argue d tha t relief w as jus tified. Clk. R. 3 3- 39
. The tria l cou rt electe d not to w ithdr aw or amend the err oneou s Finding s
an d Conclu sio ns, an d therefo re the de n ia l of relief sta nds an d this appe al follo w ed. SUMM ARY OF THE ARGU MENT ISSUE ONE In order to viola te Section 21 .12 (Improper Rela tions hip Betw een Educa tor an d Stu dent), Mr. Beck mu s t ha ve sent the text mes sa ges w ith the intent “to aro us e or gra tify the s e x ua l desire of a perso n.” Altho ugh this la ngu a g e a ppea red in the origin al indictme nt, the State am ended the indictme nt at tria l an d stru ck thos e w ords. The refore , the gu ilty plea did not
enco mpa ss tha t element. The State offe red no w itnes ses to test ify or any other

7evidenc e indica ting tha t Mr. Beck ha d an unla w fu l intent. The only evidenc e

bef ore the tria l cou rt w as tha t Mr. Beck ac ted w ith a law fu l i nt e nt
. T h e evidenc e is le ga lly ins ufficie nt. ISSUE TWO T h e Cou rt of Crimin al Appea ls held the Onlin e Solicita tion sta tute (Sectio n 33 .02 1(b)) uncon st i t u t i o n al an d as su ch, it w as void ab in iti o an d

ca nnot be us ed for any purpo se. Mr. Beck’ s co nvicti on rests so lely upo n an al lega tion tha t he vi o l a t e d tha t inva lid su bs ectio n of the Onlin e Solicita tion sta tute
. The re is no al lega t i o n o r p r o o f tha t any other su bs ectio n of the Improper Rela tions hip Betw een Edu ca tor an d Stu dent sta tute or the O nline Solicita tion sta tute w as implica ted in this ca se. Even ha d the indictme nt an d the proof in this ca se not omitte d the requi red intent element un der the Onlin e Solicita tion sta tute , bec au se tha t st a t u t e w as a nu llity Mr. Beck’ s convictio n of Improper Rela tions hip Betw een Educa tor an d Student ba sed on the inva lid sta tutemus t fa il. The tria l cou rt sho ul d have gra nted ha bea s reli ef.

8ARGUM ENT ISSUE ONE THE TRI AL COURT REVERSIBLY ERRED BY DENYING MR. BECK' S APPLICAT ION FOR WR I T OF HABEAS CORPUS BECAUSE THE EVI DENCE IS LE GALLY INSUF FI CIENT TO SUSTAI N A CONVI CTI ON IN THI S CASE; NO RATI ONAL FI NDER OF FACT COULD FI ND THAT MR. BECK ACTED WI TH UNLAWFUL I NTENT. STATEM ENT OF FACTS PERTI NENT TO ISSUE ONE As noted ab ove, Mr. Beck entered a gu ilty plea to an am ended indictme nt tha t did not al lege any unla w fu l intent. The State ca lled no
w i tn e s s e s . The offe nse report contai ns no admis sio ns by Mr. Beck or other evidenc e tha t he s ent text mes sa ges to his stu dent for any rea so n other tha n he bel ieved he w as an sw ering the stu dent’ s qu esti ons ab ou t topics they had discu ss ed at sc ho o l du r i n g the hea lth cla ss tha t he tau ght. The re is no evidenc e tha t Mr. Beckhad a ny intent to a rou se a nyon e’s sexu aldesires
. De spite the la ck ofan a llega tion or evidenc e, the trial cou rt’s Finding s of Fa ct sta te tha t Mr. Beck ac ted w ith an intent “to aro us e or gra tify the sexu al desire of a perso n . . . [a nd w ithou t] any legitim ate purpo se.” Clk. R. 29
. Mr. Beck spec ifica lly cha llenge d the tria l cou rt’s Finding of Fa ct Nu mbe r 5 on this iss ue , c al ling to the c ou rt’s atte ntionthe la ck ofevidenc e in the rec ord. Clk.
9R. 35
. The State did not file a respo nse of any kind to the Ob jection s. The tria l
cou rt did not wi thdraw or a mend its Findings or Co nclu sio ns. ARGUM ENT AND AUT HORITI ES IN SUPPORT OF ISSUE ONE A. Standa rd of Rev ie w . Thi s Hono rab le Cou rt ha s held tha t, “W hen review ing the tria l cou rt’s denia l of an applica tion for w rit of ha bea s co rpus unde r arti cle 11 .072 of the Texa s Code of Crimin al Pro cedu re, the appe lla te cou rt mu st view the fa cts in th e light mos t fa vora ble to the tria l cou rt’s ruli ng an d uph old tha t r u l i n g ab se n t a n ab us e of discre tion.” Ex pa rte Rod rigu ez -Gri mal do , No. 03 -1 2- 00 01 9- CR, 20 13 WL 26 31 62 9, at *1 (Te x. App. Ju ne 5, 20 13 ) (not designa ted for pub lica tion) (citin g Ex Parte Whe el er, 20 3 S.W.3 d 31 7, 324 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 06 )). “Ho w ever, a deferenti al ab us e of discre tion review is not appro pr i a t e i n the context of the appli ca tion of la w to fa cts w hen the tria l
cou rt’s decis ion does not turn on the credib ility or demea nor o f w i tn e s s e s. Whe n the tria l judge is not in an app r e c i a b l y b etter pos ition tha n the review ing co urt, a denov oreview by the appel la te cou rt is a ppropria te.” Ex pa rte Hol lo wel l , No. 03 -1 1- 00 24 0- CR, 2 01 2 WL 19 59 30 9, at *2 (Te x. A pp. J un e 1, 20 12 ) (not designa ted for pub lica tion) (citin g Ex pa rte Mar tin , 6 S.W.3 d 524,

1052 6 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 99 ). “W hen the reso lu tion of the ul tima te qu esti on

turn s on the appli ca tion of lega l sta ndards , w e con duc t a de nov o review .” Id
. (citin g Ex Parte Pete rs on , 11 7 S.W.3 d 80 4, 81 9 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 03 ), ov er ru le d on othe r g ro unds byEx p ar teLewi s , 21 9 S.W .3d 3 35 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 07)). “T o determine if there is su ffici ent evid e nc e to su pport a crimina l

c o nvicti on, a review ing cou rt mu st as k w hether, after view ing the evidenc e in the light mos t fa vora ble to the pros ecu tion, any rati ona l trier of fa ct cou ld ha ve fo un d the ess entia l elements of the crime bey ond a rea so nable dou bt.” Tho mas v. State, 44 4 S.W.3 d 4, 8 (Te x . C r i m . A p p . 20 14 ) (citin g Jacks on v. Vir gi ni a , 44 3 U .S. 30 7, 3 19 (19 79 ). B. The Statute o f Convi ctio n Requir ed a n Unlawf ul Inte nt. In order to viola te S e c t i o n 21 .12 of the Texa s Pen al Code, Improper Rela tions hip Betw een Educa tor/Stu dent (the offe nse of convictio n), Mr. Beck
mu st ha ve either enga ged in con duc t invo lving the unla w fu l tou ching of the stu dent (“ sexu al contac t, s exua l interco urs e, or devia te sexu al interco urs e” ) or eng ag ed in “c ondu ct desc ribe d by Sectio n 33 .02 1” with the s tudent. Tex. Pen al Code Ann. § 21 .12
. Section 33 .02 1 is the Onlin e Solicita tion sta tute
. Tex. Pen al C o de Ann. § 33 .02 1. As mentio ned ab ove, there w as never any

11a l l e g a t ion or proof tha t Mr. Beck enga ged in any unla w fu l tou ching of th e

stu dent; the only ba sis for the Improper Relatio nsh ip cha rge a nd conv ictio n
w as an a lleged vio la tion o f the On line Soli cita tion s tatu te. The re aretwo wa ys to viola te the On line Soli cita tion s tatu te: 1) to us e the interne t to sen d an electro nic ma il or text mes sa ge to commun ica te in a sexu al ly explicit ma nn e r w i th a minor or distrib ute sexu al ly explicit ma teria l to a minor (w ith the intent to aro us e or gra tify the sexu al desire of any perso n), w hich viola tes su bs ectio n (b ); or 2) to us e the interne t to know ingly so licit a minor to meet an other perso n (w ith the inte nt tha t the minor w ill enga ge in sexu al contac t, sexu al interco urs e, or devia te sexu al interco urs e w ith the ac tor or a nothe r perso n), w hich vi ola tes s ub sec tion (c ). Tex. P ena l Code A nn. § 33 .02 1. The re w a s never any al lega tion or proof tha t Mr. Beck so licited the stu dent in a w ay to viola te su bs ectio n (c) of the statu te; the sole bas is for the cha rged crimina l lia bili ty w as the mere sen ding of t e x t m e ss ag es tha t w ere al legedly sexu al ly explicit in vio la tion of Section 33 .02 1(b). Tha t su bs ectio n requi res an unlaw fu l intent – th e s a m e intent contai ned in the la ngu ag e the pros ecu tor stru ck from the origin al indictme nt at the plea hea ring. Amen ded Indictment, C lk. R. 7.

12C. The Stat e Aba ndoned and Pre se nted No Evidenc e of Unlawful Inte nt

– T he Evide nce is Legal ly I nsuff icie nt. Mr. Beck argue d to the tria l cou rt on ha bea s tha t, “N either the State’ s al lega tion or proof su ffice s to con stitu te a crimina l offe nse .” Clk. R. 38
. The State did no t refu te this cla im in a ny w ay . Thi s is a pure ly lega l iss ue tha t this Cou rt is ca pab le of adju di c a t i ng, therefo re a de nov o sta ndard is appro priat e. How ever , b a s e d on the

un di s p u t e d s tate of the reco rd, ev en un der an ab us e of discre tion sta ndard, the tria l cou rt erred. De spite ca lling the tria l cou rt’s atte ntion to the fa ilu re of
an al lega tion o r anyproof w ha tso ever a s to Mr. Beck’s unl aw fu l intent, a nd the sta tute ’s requi rement for Mr. Beck to ha ve ha d su ch intent for convictio n, th e tr i al cou rt refu sed to reco nsi der an d w ithdra w its Finding s an d Conclu sio ns denying habea s relief. On this record, no ration al finder of fa ct
cou ld find tha t Mr. Beck ac te d w i th unla w fu l intent an d the evidenc e is lega lly ins ufficie nt. D. Conclusio n. The tria l cou rt comm itted revers ible error w hen it denied relief on Mr. Beck’ s Applica tion for a Writ of Hab ea s Corpu s. Thi s H o n o r a b le Cou rt

13sho ul d revers e an d enter an appe lla te ac qu itta l bec au se the evidenc e is lega lly

ins ufficie nt. ISSUE TWO THE TRI AL COURT REVERSIBLY ERRED BY DENYING MR. BE C K ’ S APPLICAT ION FOR WRI T OF HABEAS CORPUS B E C A U S E T H E S T A T U T E U P O N W H I C H T H I S CONVI CTI ON RESTS IS UNCONSTI TUT IONA L AND WA S A NULLI TY AB IN

ITI O . STATEM ENT OF FACTS PERTI NENT TO ISSUE TWO Mr. Beck spec ifica lly cha llenge d the tria l cou rt’s Conclu sio n s o f Law , w hich sta ted tha t despite the Court of Crimina l Appea ls’ inva lidati on of the Onlin e Solicita tion sta tute su bs ectio n at iss ue in this ca se, the su bs ectio n w as still va lid w ith rega rd to Section 21 .12 pros ecu tions an d tha t the convictio n in this ca se w as no t a ff e cted by Lo
. Ob jection s at Clk. R. 36 -3 8. The tria l cou rt did not w ithdrawits O rder denying re lief. ARGUM ENT AND AUT HORITI ES IN SUPPORT OF ISSUE TWO A. Standa rd ofRevi ew . As sta ted ab ove, w hen iss ue s of la w as opp o s e d t o fa ct determine the
reso lu tion of a ca se, this Cou rt review s the ca se de nov o . Ex pa rte Ho l l o wel l , su pra .

14B. The Inst ant Convict ion Rel ie s Ex c l us ive ly on the Viol ation of an

Inva lid Statute; The re fo re , the Tr ia l Court Err ed in Denyi ng Habe as Rel ie f. As of the date of this filing, there still a re no T exas opinio ns ana lyz ing the lega l rela tions hip betw een the inva lid Onlin e Solic i t a t i on sta tute
su bs ectio n an d the offe nse o f convictio n in this ca se, the Improper Rela tions hip Betw een Educa tor an d Student sta tute
. How ever, logic dicta tes tha t bec au se the convictio n in this ca se relies exclu siv ely on an inva lid sta tute , the convictio n ca nnot sta nd. As a pure lega l ma tter, this Cou rt sho ul d review this iss ue denov oand fin d that the trial c ou rt erred in denyin g relief
. 1. Sec tion 3 3.0 21 (b) is Unc onstitutiona l. In Octo ber 20 13 , the Texa s Cou rt of Crimin al Appea ls (CC A) held tha t Section 33 .02 1(b) of the Onlin e Solicita tion sta tute (w hich i s the sec tion prohib iting the sen ding of sexu al ly explicit mes sa ges ) is uncon stitu tiona l. Ex pa rte Lo , su pra . T h e Cou rt fou nd tha t the sta tute infring ed on citiz ens ’ Firs t Amen dment rights
. Id
. In t eres tingly , Mr. Lo al so w as a tea cher w ho w as
ac cu sed of sen ding sexu al ly explicit mes sa ges to a stu dent. Se e Lo indictme nt
an d new s arti cle at Appella nt’s Exhibit A. The CCA revers ed the decis ion of 7
The Clerk’s Record filed in this case contains the Application for Writ of 7 Habeas Cor pus that Mr. Bec k filed; however , it is miss ing the Exhibits to that docu ment. 15the intermedia te Cou rt of Appea ls (w h i c h ha d uph eld the convictio n) an d

rema nded the ca se “ to the tria l cou rt to dismi ss the indictme nt.” Id
. at 2 7. Ju dge Coc hra n’s concu rrence in an other ca se is ins truc tive on the effec t of this inva lidati on: Genera lly, a sta tute tha t ha s bee n decla red uncon stitu t i o n a l is void from i t s incepti on an d ca nnot provide a ba sis for any right or relief. It is thu s th e genera l rule tha t an uncon stitu tiona l sta tute , even thou gh it ha s the form an d na me of la w , in rea lity is no t l a w a n d in lega l contempla tion is as inope rati ve as if it ha d never u ndergon e the fo rma lities of ena ctment
. Ex Parte Ch anc e, 2 01 4 WL 17 96 64 8 (Te x. C rim. App. 20 14 ) (empha sis added, cita tions omitted). She fu rther expla ined:
an uncon stitu tiona l sta tute is void from its incepti on[;]
... w hen a sta tute is adju dged to be uncon stitu tiona l, it is as if it ha d never bee n pas sed [;]
... the sta tute is still bo rn, ... [a nd] ha d bee n fa tal ly s m i t t e n b y the Con stitu tion at its birth [,]
... [a nd] is of no mo r e forc e or va lidity tha n a pie ce ofbla nk pa per, an d is u tterly vo id. Id
. (empha sis added, citing Reye s v. State, 75 3 S.W.2 d 38 2, 38 3 (Te x. Crim. App. 19 88 )).

The Lo indic tment and art icle were attached to the Application as Exhibit 3. Counsel has asked the District Clerkto supplement the recor d with this exhibit. 162. Mr . Bec k’s Convi ctio n and Sente nce Ar e De fe ctiv e a nd Void.

The CCA h a s gra nted relief to other Applica nts for w rits of ha bea s corpus who we r e co nv icted of vi ola ting the now -u nco nsti tuti ona l sta tute
. Se e, e.g . , Ex Parte Ch anc e, su pra . Signific antly, in Ch anc e, Ju stic e Coc hra n sta ted in h e r concu rring opinio n tha t a perso n ma y “a lw ay s ob tai n relief” from a
convictio n ba sed on a pena l sta tute tha t is decla red uncon stitu tiona l ba sed on the “v oid ab in it i o ” c o nc e p t
. Thi s mea ns tha t “o ne w ho ha s bee n convicted

un der a pena l sta tute tha t is la ter fou nd uncon stitu tiona l is ‘a ctu al ly inno cent’ of any crime bec au se the ‘c ore idea is tha t the petition er ma y ha ve bee n impris oned for con duc t tha t w as not prohib ited by la w .’” Id
. at 2, citing, in te r
a l i a, R eye s– Re que na v. Uni te d States , 24 3 F.3 d 89 3, 90 3 (5 th Cir. 20 01 ). Sh e fu rther sta tes tha t a n u nco nsti tuti ona l sta tute is “v oid for al l come rs.” Id
. Thi s i nc l udes thos e w ho ha ve bee n convicted of viola ting the sta tute bef ore it w as decla red void, like M r. Beck: He may tak e adva ntag e of tha t ‘vo id ab in iti o ’ sta tus toda y, yes terday , tomo rrow , or even ten yea rs from now . Anyo ne w ho ha s bee n convicted un der the now void pro v isio ns of Section [3 3.0 21 (b) ] is ‘innoc ent’ an d ma y ob tai n an ac qu itta l, w hether it is in the tria l cou rt, on direct appe al , or in a habea s procee ding. Tha t is co nsti tuti ona lly req ui red. Id . at 3
. 17The CCA al so gra nted relief in other ca ses invo lving convictio ns un der

S e c t ion 33 .02 1(b), inclu ding thos e invo lving gu ilty plea s at tria l w ithou t a cha l l e n g e t o the sta tute at tria l or on appe al
. Ex Parte Wil li ams , 20 14 WL 25 27 78 7 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 14 ) (not designa ted f o r pub lica tion) ; Ex Parte Coope r, 2 0 1 4 W L 1 87 17 22 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 14 ) (not designa ted for pub lica tion) ; Ex Parte Downs , 20 14 W L 2 6 0 9 7 23 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 14 ) (not designa ted for pub li c ati on); se e al so , Free man v. State, 42 5 S.W.3 d 28 9 (Te x. C rim. App. 20 14 ) (noti ng tha t the low er cou rt denied relief prior to Ex Par te Lo ; PD R gra nted an d ca se rema nded “f or fu rther ac tion in light of ou r opinio n in Ex Parte Lo .”; on rema nd, convictio n revers e d an d rema nded for dismis sa l ).

8 Othe r Cou rts of Appea l aro un d th e State al so ha ve iss ue d decis ions follo w ing Lo an d revers ing convictio ns un der Section 33 .02 1(b). Sanders v. State, 20 14 WL 88 77 81 (Te x. App. – Texa rka na 20 14 ); Sch us te r v. State, 43 5 S.W.3 d 36 2 (Te x. App. – Hou sto n [1 st Di st.] 20 14 ); Ex Parte Zav al a , 42 1 S.W.3 d 22 7 (T ex. App. – San Anto nio 2 01 3)
.

Freem an v. State, No. 05- 12-00923-CR, 2014 WL 6602691 (Tex. App. Nov . 21, 8 2014). 18The refore , given the fa ctu al simi la rity an d lega l ou tcome of Ex Parte Lo ,

an d su bs eque nt ca ses decided by th e C C A an d other Texa s intermedia te appe lla te cou rts in light of the Lo de c i sio n, Mr. Beck su bmits tha t his

convictio n an d sentence are defectiv e an d void. As ma ny cou rts ha ve sta ted,
uncon stitu tiona l sta tute s are void from their incepti on, an d Mr. Beck ca nnot b e p u nis hed ba sed on his convictio n for viola ting a provis ion of a sta t u t e (Improper Rela tions hip) th at relies exclu siv ely on a void sta tute (Online Solicita tion su bpa ragraph (b) ) for lia bili ty. In fa ct, he is ac tua lly inno cent. Ex Parte Cha nce, su pra . Theref ore, this Cou rt mayenter a n ac qu itta l. Rav en bark
v. Sta te, 9 4 2 S
. W .2d 71 1 (Te x. App. – Hou sto n [1 4th Di st.] 19 97, no pet.) (hol ding on direct appe al “from a convictio n un der a void sta tute , w e hold the judgm e nt is void. The judgme nt is revers ed an d a judgme nt of ac qu itta l is rendered.” ). 9 C. Conclusio n. The tria l cou rt comm itted revers ible error w hen it denied relief on Mr. Beck’ s Applica tion for a Writ of Hab ea s Corpu s. Thi s Hon o r a b l e Cou rt

Mr
. Beck acknowledges that Lo and its prog eny remand for dismiss al of the 9 indic tment. 19JOHN CHRISTOPHER LO 200WELLINGTON #5308 MNGWOOD,TX
NaC CODE-369911F3 02471S1S SPN: SOB: AM 06-24-1560 DATE PREPARED: 1/5K201O
RELATEDCASES: FEWNY CHARGE: ONLINE SOLICITATION OFA MINOR HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURTNO: FIRST SETTING DATE* 1246900 248 IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: JOHNCmUSTOFHmiX>,henate^ tfctotofflTOiadfinit^^

_ ^Lj^m^v~l ^bom **» Defendant believed to be ymmgerrfwnffffVffnfffnyrai^1

&

^ 

## A

x 

## rf> «•

AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE. DJl LOG NUMBER.-1594515 CJIS TRACKING NO.-9W4971430-A001 BY: RZ DA NO: 001901698 AGENCYrHFD O/RNO: 161163409H ARREST DATE* 01-05-2009


### BAIL: $5000 J^* PRIOR CASsHjO: 

### "7F ', Texas, dial inHams County, Texas, 

### 31,2009, did men and tfcerc unlawfully, with

ina sexually explicit maimer vnQi FOREST BYTEXTMESSAG^iari&eDefendant was at

FOREMAN OFTHE GRAND JURY INDICTMENT

Exhibit 3html


### .A teacher, sexting and the right to free speech Posted Tuesday, Feb. 25,2014 BY MITCH MITCHELL mltchmitchell@star-telegram.com He was 30 and she was 13— a teacher and hisstudent— but their relationship went far beyond the classroom, authorities say. In six days in October 2012, they sent 688 text messages to each other, and the conversation became sexual, according toan arrest warrant affidavit. The messages
— known as "sexting"

—included descriptions of sexual preferences and fantasies and discussions of dreams about each other, the affidavit says. Sean Arlis Williams, now 31, who was a junior high school teacher inthe Everman district, was eventually arrested ona charge of online solicitation ofa minor, which was laterchangedto improper relationship between an educator and student. But this month, based ona recent appeals court ruling dealing with a similar case in Harris County, Tarrant County prosecutors dismissed his case. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in October thata 2005 statute, which made sexually explicit online communication between an adult and minor illegal, violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The court examined thecase of John Christopher Lo, who was arrested in 2010 after being accused ofsending sexually explicit text messages to a student he met while working as a choir director in a school district outside Houston. 'It's OK for adults to talk dirty to children," said Mark Bennett, the Houston attorney who defended Lo. Bennett had argued that thestatute is too broad because "simple profanity or vulgarity

— not rising to the level ofobscenity —is constitutionally protected speech." Lawyers for the state contended that without the law "perverts will be free to bombard our children with salacious emails and text messages." The court's opinion saidsexual expression that is indecent but not obscene is protected bythe First Amendment, and includes sexually explicit literature suchas 50 Shades of Grey and Lady Chatterle/s Lover, as wellas Miley Cyrus' "twerking" during the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards. Jurisprudence experts say the ruling, depending on the appellate process, could throw other cases into a legal black hole and could force state legislators to rewrite the law. Bennett said that inthe meantime, prosecutors should contact those convicted under the 2005 statute and tell them they havean avenue for redress, Bennett said. "I believe they havea duty to go back and set things right," Bennettsaid. Tarrant County prosecutors dismissed their case against Williams on Feb. 10. The recent opinion by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has certainly caused us to re-examinea handful of cases and, where appropriate, seek to re-indict them under... online solicitation ofa minor," said Melody McDonald, spokeswoman forthe Tarrant County district attorney's office. "In this particular case, however, the facts didn't fit that statute and that wasn't an option." Attempts to contact Williams were unsuccessful. His attorney, Jim Shaw, said the statute is clearly unconstitutional. "it's (ike having a 16-year-old talking to a 20-year-old and although 16-year-olds aren't naive I guess state lawmakers figured they need protection,"Shaw said. Used 'bad judgment' The student, identified in court documents by the pseudonym Mary Swan, had two classes with Williams at Baxter Junior High, which is located in Fort Worth and is governed by the Everman school district. After school officials found that Williams had been sending the text messages to the student, they called the .enforcement authorities andcontacted her mother. The mother contacted Fort Worth police, who interviewed the student. The student told police that she had exchanged phone numbers and began texting with Williams on Oct. 2, 2012. The messages became sexual, she said, and she told detectives that he had asked her not to tellanyone about their conversations, according to the arrest warrant affidavit. The text messages included "talking about if either of them walked around naked in their homes, keeping the relationship secret until the victim graduates, dreams that each of them had about each other, virginity and showing restraint while they are in the classroom," the affidavit says. Photographs were exchanged, Including one of the student wearing a bra with no shirt. In November 2012, police interviewed Williams, who said that he had used "bad judgment" in sending the messages and that he knew she was a minor. He said he had not touched the student or met with her alone, according to the affidavit. 

### He was arrested Jan. 18,2013, on a charge of online solicitation of a minor and was booked into jail on the improper relationship charge May 20. He was released on bail after three days, according to court records. Still has teaching certificate 

### Williams, who began working in the Everman district in August 2007, left the district Nov. 30, 201Z District officials declined to discuss the reasons for Williams' departure or the district's response to the criminal investigation of his behavior. 

### Williams' teacher certification remains valid until July 2017 for teaching secondary history and social studies classes But Williams* 

### certrfication is under review by the State Board of Education's Professional Discipline Unit, according to Texas Education Agency records. There are Instances when a teacher is under a criminal investigation and we suspend our investigation until the criminal investigation plays out, a TEA spokeswoman said. There also have been instances where a person might be exonerated in a criminal investigation but his certificate becomes invalid because of something that comes out during a school district investigation." A legislative matter? 

### Though the case against Williams has been dismissed, a motion for rehearing Lo's case is pending at the appeals court level. 

### Because the appellate jurists voted JH) to overturn the statute, Bennett, who defended Lo, said he doubts that the petition for a rehearinq will be successful. y If the Court of Criminal Appeals denies the petition, the state could petition the U.S. Supreme Court. 

### Alan Curry, chief of the appellate division for the Harris County district attorney's office, said his staff is awaiting adecision on the petition before deciding on the nextstep. fwuuwi 

### He said the best option may be for state lawmakers to rewrite the law so that it satisfies the courts, "but that's way down the road," Curry State Rep. Bill Zedler, R-Arlington, said the 2005 statute was originally proposed to keep children from being groomed by sexual predators 

# &tert? 810 b,OCk *•,3W',aWmakefS ^ ^t0 ^^ ^ ^ aU°mey 9enera'and come UP «* "i"* «£w The purpose of the First Amendment was to allow political dissent, not to allow adults to be vulgar with minors," Zedler said. Vague or ambiguous' 

### Shaw, Williams' attorney, said it would not matter whether an adult sent 2,000 sexually explicit text messages to a minor or just one 

### unless the adult« tiying to get the minor to do something illegal, such as ameeting for sex, or is texting something obscene or pornographic; nonetheless, the state cannot get a conviction using the 2005 statute. . -• This is not the first time lawmakers in Austin have written a law that did not pass constitutional muster. 

### "A lot of times these statues are vague or ambiguous," Shaw said. "A lot of times they fail to say what's illegal." 

### T^^l^ aPPe,!,ate ^Ty who"orked at *» Fort Worth offi°e of the Court of Criminal Appeals, said the court's message is 

## directed to state lawmakers, saying they need to rewrite the law so that it achie^s its stated purpose of protecting minors SsLng. "Our courts have ruled that limits on free speech are permissible but those limits need to be reasonable," Ruback said. "Iknow lawmakers 

# S"I7 *"wouw "" better ^draftln9 new 'egls,aUon that ls more —•*«—and TM*TM*TcT ,