Ex Parte Dedrick Houston, 02-16-00359-CR

Dedrick Houston pleaded guilty to improper photography under former Tex. Penal Code § 21.15(b)(2) for photographing a woman in a bathroom or private dressing room; the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on three years' community supervision with a $300 fine.
Houston filed an article 11.072 habeas application seeking relief based on Ex parte Thompson, which struck down part of § 21.15 as facially unconstitutional.
The trial court denied Houston’s habeas application; Houston appealed the denial to the Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth).
The statutory provision at issue had two subsections: (b)(1) covered images taken outside bathrooms/dressing rooms and required intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire; (b)(2) covered images taken in bathrooms/dressing rooms and included an additional intent element to invade privacy or to arouse or gratify sexual desire.
In Ex parte Thompson, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held § 21.15(b)(1) facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment but expressly found § 21.15(b)(2) to be narrowly drawn and did not invalidate it.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court, concluding Thompson did not affect Houston’s conviction under § 21.15(b)(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thompson voids Houston’s conviction under § 21.15	Houston: Thompson invalidated § 21.15 generally, so his conviction is void	State: Thompson invalidated only § 21.15(b)(1); Houston was charged under (b)(2), which remains valid	Court: Held for State; Thompson did not invalidate (b)(2), so trial court did not err

Ex parte Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (held § 21.15(b)(1) facially unconstitutional; distinguished and did not invalidate § 21.15(b)(2))
Ex parte Jessep, 281 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009) (articulates abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of habeas denials)