Ex Parte Christopher Ruben Zavala
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14882
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Zavala charged with three counts under Tex. Penal Code § 33.021: Count I (c) Internet solicitation to meet a minor with intent for sexual conduct; Counts II–III (b) sexually explicit communications with a minor.
- Zavala filed a pretrial habeas petition arguing § 33.021(c) is facially unconstitutional because § 33.021(d)(2) negates the mens rea requirement by prohibiting a defense that the meeting did not occur or was fantasy.
- Trial court referred to a criminal magistrate who denied relief; Zavala appealed interlocutorily.
- Pretrial habeas review is appropriate to challenge facial constitutionality of a statute; as-applied challenges are improper at this stage.
- Court reviews the statute de novo, presumes validity, and construes plain language to determine if a reasonable construction renders it constitutional; concludes no internal contradiction between (c) and (d).
- Court affirms the trial court, holding Count I valid and the statute not facially unconstitutional; notes Counts II–III may be dismissed under Ex parte Lo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 33.021(c) facially unconstitutional due to internal inconsistency with § 33.021(d)(2)? | Zavala argues (c) and (d)(2) are contradictory, rendering the statute void on its face. | State contends there is no contradiction; the statute completes at solicitation and (d) does not negate mens rea. | Not unconstitutional; (c) and (d) are not contradictory; Count I valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (pretrial habeas limitations on facial challenges; facial challenge allowed for statute validity)
- Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (absence of verification not jurisdictional for habeas petitions)
- Ex parte Golden, 991 S.W.2d 859 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (pleading verifications not jurisdictional in habeas petitions)
- Maloney v. State, 294 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (facial challenge to § 33.021(c) upheld against overbreadth/vagueness concerns)
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (context for facial challenges to statutes)