Ex Parte Michael Reighley
10-16-00225-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Michael Reighley filed a pretrial habeas petition asking the trial court to declare Tex. Penal Code § 33.021(c) and (d) facially unconstitutional; the trial court denied relief and Reighley appealed.
- Reighley was charged under § 33.021(c) for online solicitation of a minor (soliciting a minor to meet with intent the minor will engage in sexual conduct).
- At the time of the offense, subsection (d) provided that it is not a defense that the meeting did not occur, the actor did not intend the meeting to occur, or the actor was engaged in a fantasy.
- The Texas Legislature later amended § 33.021 (effective Sept. 1, 2015) by removing subsections (d)(2) and (d)(3).
- Reighley argued subsections (c) and (d) are internally contradictory on the intent element and therefore facially unconstitutional; the State defended the statute’s validity.
- The trial court and Tenth Court of Appeals relied on prior authority holding the offense is complete at the time of solicitation and that subsection (d) does not negate the mental-state element in (c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 33.021(c) and (d) are facially unconstitutional as internally inconsistent on intent | Reighley: (c) requires intent that the minor engage in sexual conduct, but (d) eliminates intent defenses, creating contradiction rendering statute facially invalid | State: (c) criminalizes the solicitation act and (d) merely clarifies defenses; no internal inconsistency | Court: Statute is not contradictory; (c) is completed at solicitation and (d) does not negate the intent element in (c); habeas denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App.) (solicitation offense is completed at the time of the request; intent requirement is tied to the solicitation)
- Ex parte Zavala, 421 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. App.—San Antonio) (rejecting claim that subsections (c) and (d) conflict; (d) does not negate (c)’s intent)
- State v. Rosseau, 396 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for facial challenge to criminal statute)
- State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App.) (consider statute as written when evaluating facial challenges)
- Horhn v. State, 481 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. App.) (presumption of statute validity in constitutional challenges)
- Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. Crim. App.) (burden on challenger to establish unconstitutionality)