Ex Parte Juan Jose Sanchez, 01-16-00181-CR

Juan Jose Sanchez was indicted on two counts under Tex. Penal Code § 32.51 for possession/use of another's identifying information with intent to harm or defraud.
Sanchez filed a motion to quash and a pretrial writ of habeas corpus asserting the statute is facially unconstitutional.
He raised First Amendment free-speech and thought-criminalization (First, Eighth, and Texas due-course) challenges, and briefly referenced a Dormant Commerce Clause claim (waived).
The trial court denied habeas relief; Sanchez appealed, presenting a facial challenge (court reviews statute de novo).
The court considered prior authority construing § 32.51, statutory definitions (identifying information; possession), and vagueness/overbreadth doctrines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 32.51 unlawfully restricts First Amendment speech	Sanchez: statute criminalizes speech (e.g., use of a name in literature, editorials)	State: statute targets noncommunicative or privacy-invading misuse of identifying info tied to intent to harm or defraud	Court: statute does not implicate protected speech facially; upheld under Horhn and related precedent
Whether § 32.51 criminalizes mere thought/knowledge (possession = knowledge)	Sanchez: "possession" could mean mere knowledge, criminalizing thought in violation of First, Eighth, and Texas due-course	State: possession reasonably construed as physical control of tangible written/recorded identifying information	Court: construed "possession" to require physical control; does not criminalize mere thought
Whether "intent to harm or defraud" is unconstitutionally vague	Sanchez: "harm" standard gives insufficient notice of prohibited speech/actions	State: phrase provides adequate notice in context; statute addresses harmful misuse	Court: phrase gives fair warning; statute not void for vagueness in all applications
Whether Horhn and related precedents should be overruled	Sanchez: asks court to overrule Horhn and interpret "use" broadly to encompass protected speech	State: statutory construction and noscitur a sociis show "use" tied to intent to harm/defraud, not ordinary criticism	Court: declines to overrule Horhn; follows plain-language construction preserving constitutionality

Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (facial-challenge review principles)
Maloney v. State, 294 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (statutory construction favors constitutional reading)
Horhn v. State, 481 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (upholding § 32.51 against First Amendment overbreadth challenge)
Ex parte Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (test for expressive vs. nonexpressive conduct)
Scott v. State, 322 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (unprotected speech that invades privacy)
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1971) (First Amendment principles on expressive conduct and limits)
State v. Rosseau, 396 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (burden on challenger of statute's constitutionality)
Holcombe, 187 S.W.3d 496 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (vagueness standards for criminal statutes)
Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1982) (facial vagueness and overbreadth analysis)