Chance, Donald Ray
439 S.W.3d 918
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Applicant convicted of two counts of online solicitation of a minor in Montgomery County, Texas.
- Convictions arose under the online solicitation statute later held unconstitutional in Ex parte Lo.
- Applicant filed a habeas application under Texas Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07 seeking relief.
- Trial court recommended relief and the Court granted relief setting aside the judgments.
- Judgments remanded to answer the indictment consistent with Ex parte Lo, with bench warrants as needed.
- Copies of the opinion to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Pardons and Paroles were ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lo’s conviction is void ab initio after Lo decision | Lo | Lo had not raised challenge previously | Relief granted; convictions set aside as void ab initio |
| Whether facial challenges to constitutionality can be raised on habeas | Lo raised at trial? | Karenev forfeiture applies | Question left for full briefing; dissenting view noted |
| Whether actual innocence allows relief for void offenses | Lo and others are actually innocent | Not all circuits agree on actual innocence scope | Accepted as applicable under void ab initio doctrine (concurrence view) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (unconstitutional online solicitation statute; holds void ab initio)
- Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1879) (statute unconstitutional; allowed collateral relief in habeas (historical precedent))
- Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1974) (habeas/review post-conviction relief for unconstitutional statute)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir.2001) (actual innocence concept; relief for nonexistent offense)
- Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (facial challenge forfeiture; context of later void statute)