Ex Parte Stuart Oland Wheeler
01-14-00868-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 5, 2015Background
- Wheeler challenged Texas Penal Code §33.021(c) via habeas corpus after online solicitation charges; trial court denied relief.
- Appeal before the First Court of Appeals; applicant sought denial of habeas relief as facially unconstitutional.
- Texas §33.021(c) criminalizes knowingly soliciting a minor online to meet for sexual acts; other subsections (b),(d) also discussed.
- Ex Parte Lo (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) held §33.021(b) overbroad but left (c) and remaining subsections constitutional; rational basis review applicable to (c).
- Court adopts rational basis review for subsections (c) and (d); distinction drawn between speech-prohibiting (b) and conduct-prohibiting (c).
- Court concludes §33.021(c) is narrowly tailored to protect children, survives rational basis review, and Dormant Commerce Clause does not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §33.021(c) survives rational basis scrutiny | Wheeler argues overbreadth/vagueness and fails under rational basis standard | State contends (c) serves compelling interest in protecting children and is narrowly tailored | §33.021(c) survives under rational basis review |
| Whether subsections (b) and (d) affect the facial validity of §33.021 | Wheeler argues overbreadth/vagueness, potentially invalidating (b) and (d) | Lo/Zavala/Maloney line of cases uphold remaining subsections; (d) does not undercut (c) | Remaining subsections upheld; (d) does not change standard of review for (c) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex Parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (held §33.021(b) overbroad; (c) constitutionally governs conduct)
- Maloney v. State, 294 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (upheld facial constitutionality of §33.021(c))
- Ex Parte Zavala, 421 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2013) (vagueness challenges to §33.021 considered; plain meaning upheld)
- New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1982) (government interest in protecting children from abuse supports regulation)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (U.S. 2008) (categorical exclusion of certain speech from First Amendment protection)