NO. 12-14-00114-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DAVID LUKE FORRESTER, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 159TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

David Luke Forrester appeals his convictions for possession of child pornography and 

online solicitation of a minor. He raises one issue on appeal. We reverse and remand with 

instructions.

BACKGROUND

On November 2, 2012, an Angelina County grand jury returned a six count indictment 

against Appellant. The indictment alleged that Appellant committed four counts of aggravated 

sexual assault of a child, one count of possession of child pornography, and one count of online 

solicitation of a minor. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the State dismissed counts one through four 

of the indictment (aggravated sexual assault of a child), and Appellant pleaded guilty to counts 

five and six (possession of child pornography and online solicitation of a minor). There was no 

agreement on punishment and a presentence investigation was conducted. On February 18, 

2014, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. On count five (possession of child 

pornography), the trial court assessed punishment at ten years of imprisonment. On count six

(online solicitation of a minor), the trial court assessed punishment at twenty years of 

imprisonment. The trial court then ordered the sentences to run consecutively. This appeal 

followed.
2

LEGALITY OF PUNISHMENT

In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by ordering his 

sentences to run consecutively. Appellant argues that his convictions arose from the same 

criminal episode, and therefore do not fall under any of the exceptions listed in Texas Penal 

Code Section 3.03, which authorizes consecutive sentences. But Appellant’s sentence for online 

solicitation of a minor is based on a statutory subsection that has been declared unconstitutional.1 

Therefore, we must first determine whether Appellant bargained for a legal sentence in return for 

the State’s dismissal of four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. 

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

A plea bargain is a contract between the state and the defendant. Ex parte De Leon, 400 

S.W.3d 83, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). When both parties have knowingly and voluntarily 

entered into a plea bargain, they are bound by the terms of that agreement once it is accepted by 

the trial judge. Moore v. State, 295 S.W.3d 329, 331 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). But where the 

parties bargain for an illegal sentence, the appropriate remedy is to return them to the positions 

they occupied prior to the plea bargain agreement. See Ex parte Beck, 922 S.W.2d 181, 182 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Ex parte De Leon, 400 S.W.3d at 90 (holding that if specific 

performance of plea agreement is not possible, appropriate remedy is “withdrawal of the plea, 

with both parties, including the State, returned to their original positions”) (citing Shannon v. 

State, 708 S.W.2d 850, 852 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)). An illegal sentence is one that is not 

authorized by law. See Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804, 806 n. 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

Discussion

Appellant pleaded guilty to counts five and six of the indictment in return for the State’s 

dismissal of counts one through four. Count six of the indictment alleged that, on or about 

August 6, 2012, Appellant

did then and there, being a person who was 17 years of age or older, with the intent to arouse or 

gratify the sexual desire of the defendant or John Doe, a pseudonym, intentionally communicate 

by text message in a sexually explicit manner, to-wit: by referring to oral deviate sexual 

intercourse or anal deviate sexual intercourse, with John Doe, a pseudonym, an individual younger 

than 14 years of age[.]

 

1

See Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10, 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
3

The indictment tracks the language of Section 33.021(b) of the penal code. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 33.021(b) (West 2011).2 On October 30, 2013, the court of criminal appeals 

held that Section 33.021(b) is unconstitutional. See Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10, 20 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2013). Appellant pleaded guilty on December 3, 2013. Thus, when Appellant pleaded 

guilty to count six, he pleaded guilty to a crime that did not exist. See Ex parte Chance, 439 

S.W.3d 918, 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (Cochran, J., concurring); Reyes v. State, 753 S.W.2d 

382, 383 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (“[A]n unconstitutional statute in the criminal area is to be 

considered no statute at all.”) (citing Hiett v. U.S., 415 F.2d 664, 666 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. den.

397 U.S. 936, 90 S. Ct. 941, 25 L. Ed. 2d 117). 

Neither Appellant nor the State raised an issue in this appeal regarding the legality of 

Appellant’s sentence pursuant to their plea agreement. Nevertheless, an appellate court “may 

always notice and correct an illegal sentence” if it otherwise has jurisdiction over a criminal 

conviction. Mizell, 119 S.W.3d at 806. We have jurisdiction in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(a)(2).

At the time Appellant entered into the plea agreement and pleaded guilty, a conviction 

and sentence under Section 33.021(b) of the penal code was unauthorized by law. See Ex parte 

Lo, 424 S.W.3d at 20; Mizell, 119 S.W.3d at 806 n. 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Thus, the parties 

bargained for an illegal sentence. See Ex parte Beck, 922 S.W.2d at 182. The appropriate 

remedy is to return both parties to their original pre-plea positions. See Ex parte De Leon, 400 

S.W.3d at 91; Ex parte Beck, 922 S.W.2d at 182. Therefore, we do not address whether 

Appellant’s sentences should be cumulated because the issue is moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

 

2

Section 33.021(b) provides as follows:

A person who is 17 years of age or older commits an offense if, with the intent to arouse or gratify 

the sexual desire of any person, the person, over the Internet, by electronic mail or text message or 

other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, intentionally:

(1) communicates in a sexually explicit manner with a minor; or

(2) distributes sexually explicit material to a minor. 

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 33.021(b) (West 2011).
4

DISPOSITION

Having found error in the judgment, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand

the cause to the trial court with instructions to dismiss count six of the indictment. See Ex parte 

Lo, 424 S.W.3d at 27; Ex parte Beck, 922 S.W.2d at 182.

BRIAN HOYLE

Justice

Opinion delivered March 18, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 18, 2015

NO. 12-14-00114-CR

DAVID LUKE FORRESTER,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 159th District Court 

of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2012-0589)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed herein, 

and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this court that there was error in the 

judgment of the court below, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with instructions to dismiss 

count six of the indictment; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

Brian Hoyle, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.