and it is often intentionally so." Ex Parte Reece, 517 S.W.3d 108, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (Keller, P.J., dissenting from refusal of discretionary review).
Point of Error Two: If the statute is interpreted narrowly not to be overbroad, such interpretation will render it unconstitutionally vague.
Due process requires that laws give people of ordinary intelligence fair
notice of what is prohibited. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104,
108 (1972). The lack of such notice in a law that regulates expression
"raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious
chilling effect on free speech." Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union,
521 U.S. 844, 872 (1997). Vague laws force potential speakers to "steer
far wider of the unlawful zone ... than if the boundaries of the
forbidden areas were clearly marked." Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360,
372 (1964) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
While "perfect clarity and precise guidance have never been
required even of regulations that restrict expressive activity," Ward v.
Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 794 (1989), "government may
regulate in the area" of First Amendment freedoms "only with narrow
specificity." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433 (1963); see also
Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S.
489, 499 (1982).
Section 21.16(b) as written is plain and overbroad. If this Court
were to narrow its interpretation to save it from overbreadth, such an
interpretation would necessarily render it unconstitutionally vague.
❧ Prayer for Relief
For these reasons, Mr. Jones asks this Court to reverse the trial court's
denial of habeas relief, hold that section 21.16(b) is unconstitutional,
and remand the case to the trial court with orders to dismiss the
Information.
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________ Mark W. Bennett Counsel for Appellant
Certificate of Service
A copy of this Brief for Appellant has been served upon the State of
Texas by electronic filing. Certificate of Compliance
According to Microsoft Word's word count, this brief contains 2,808
words, not including the: caption, identity of parties and counsel,
statement regarding oral argument, table of contents, index of
authorities, statement of the case, statement of issues presented,
statement of jurisdiction, statement of procedural history, signature,
proof of service, certification, certificate of compliance, and appendix.
______________________ Mark W. Bennett
Appendix 1: Order denying habeas relief.
ClgIu/a u u
6$u57u7u 2"u7@5u )/ 7$u2=/7Au2;37u
)/ 6u -?u0<. 3u7?2u
*240u37-)7u+215u )/ 5.(9%u2>/8Bu9!@5u
:SIuamfkuCPIdudIoUIruaKu jTIuIMJ`HC_iguCccZVGCiUa`uTCEICgueIYVIKuiSIu5jCiIguC_grIdu
C`Hu iTIu NWYIu NW_Hgu C`Hu HIjId^V`Igu iTCiu jTIdIu CdIu _au Ga`idapIeiIHu ceIpVamgZtu m`dIgaYpIHu MDGjgu
]CjIeVCZuiaujSIuZIQCYVjtu aKu jSIu HIMJ`HC`jgu dIgkeCV`ju aeuGa_NX_I]I`j uC_HujTCiujTIu[IQC\u ceaGIHnfIguV_u
iSVguGCgIurIfIucdacIfuC_HuCgu ceaqVHIHu EtujTIu<`UiIHu 5iCiIgua`gjVjljUa`u C_Hu7IsCgu ZCr
u
&juVguTIfIEtu 233uiTCiuiTIuIO_HC`jgu CccYUGCiVa`u NbfuSCFICgueIYVIKuUgu /'uU`uCZZu
iSV_Qh u
5'#/u jSVgu HCtuaLu u
u
/
%2/23- ,mHRI uam_ituameiuCju -Cruu 5^UiTual`itu 7IsCgu
&$/% #/"/ (// /
/ //
/ '*+! / ,-./
/
/