Ex parte Fournier, 473 S.W.3d 789

Background

Curtis Fournier and Christopher Dowden pleaded guilty to online solicitation of a minor under Tex. Penal Code § 33.021(b) and were sentenced (2008, 2011).
In Ex parte Lo, this Court held § 33.021(b) facially overbroad under the First Amendment and invalidated portions criminalizing sexually explicit communications and distribution (2013).
Applicants sought post-conviction habeas relief both under Lo (unconstitutional-statute theory) and as claims of "actual innocence."
The Court agreed applicants are entitled to have their convictions set aside under Lo but examined whether Lo also supports standalone "actual innocence" relief.
The Court reviewed Texas actual-innocence doctrine (derived from federal cases) and held Texas requires proof of factual innocence via newly discovered evidence, not mere legal invalidity of the statute.
Conclusion: applicants are not entitled to relief on an actual-innocence theory, but their convictions are vacated and indictments remanded for dismissal under the Lo unconstitutional-statute ground (consistent with Ex parte Chance).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether convictions vacated because § 33.021(b) is facially overbroad (Lo) entitle applicants to habeas relief	Applicants: Lo renders the criminalized conduct non-criminal; they are therefore "actually innocent"	State: Lo provides statutory-unconstitutionality relief but does not convert that into a freestanding factual-innocence claim absent new evidence	Held: Relief granted on Lo (statute invalid) — judgments set aside; but actual-innocence claims denied
Whether Texas recognizes a freestanding actual-innocence claim based on legal invalidity of statute	Applicants: A later decision declaring statute unconstitutional makes them actually innocent	State: Actual-innocence in Texas requires newly discovered evidence showing factual innocence	Held: Texas requires clear-and-convincing new evidence proving factual innocence; legal invalidity alone insufficient
Whether federal precedents where actual innocence was used to overcome procedural bars apply	Applicants: Cite Bousley, Reyes-Requena and others to argue legal-invalidity can equate to actual innocence	State: Those federal cases address procedural default/savings-clause and are inapposite to initial Texas writs	Held: Federal cases in context of successive federal habeas are inapplicable here; they do not establish a freestanding Texas actual-innocence remedy based solely on statutory invalidation
Retroactivity of Lo for final convictions	Applicants: Should receive relief because statute is void ab initio	State/Separate views: Teague principles could limit retroactivity; overbreadth differs from ordinary facial invalidation	Held: Following Ex parte Chance and Summerlin/Teague principles, Lo (a substantive rule narrowing criminal liability) is applied retroactively; convictions vacated. Dissent argued for prospective effect or as-applied showing

Key Cases Cited

Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (federal discussion of actual innocence and limits on freestanding innocence claims)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual-innocence gateway to overcome procedural default in federal habeas)
Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (holding § 33.021(b) substantially overbroad and unconstitutional)
Ex parte Chance, 439 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (applying Lo relief to collateral cases; per curiam)
Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (Texas standard: actual-innocence relief requires clear-and-convincing newly discovered evidence)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (holding actual-innocence showing can excuse procedural default in federal habeas where legal change undermines conviction)
Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (interpreting when claims fit § 2255 savings clause; not a merits grant here)
Ex parte Mable, 443 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (illustrating fact- and conduct-focused actual-innocence analysis)