Lebo, Sean, PD-1336-15

Leb o was convicted of harassment by electronic communications under Tex. Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7) after sending ~40 emails to Detective Jason Layman in 2012–2013
The emails accused Layman of corruption and misconduct and threatened civil/criminal action and investigations
Statutory terms like harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass are undefined and the subsection (a)(7) is disjunctive, raising vagueness and overbreadth concerns
Lebo preserved the facial challenge to the statute via a post‑verdict motion at sentencing; the trial court denied relief
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed Lebo’s conviction, rejecting the facial challenge; Lebo sought discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals
The Court of Criminal Appeals ultimately held § 42.07(a)(7) not unconstitutional on its face and affirmed the conviction

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Tex. Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7) unconstitutional on its face for vagueness or overbreadth?	Lebo argues the term ‘annoy’ is vague and the statute too broad to criminalize protected speech	State contends the statute is not overbroad or vague under Scott v. State and does not abridge protected speech	Not unconstitutional on its face; statute not overbroad or vague
Whether Lebo is entitled to relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel for not raising the constitutional challenge earlier?	Ineffective assistance due to failure to challenge statute pretrial/during guilt phase	Issue foreclosed since constitutional challenge merits resolve the claim; no basis for ineffective assistance	No appeal relief; issue not reached because merits resolved in Lebo's favor on the facial challenge

Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (statute challenges require de novo review of constitutionality; presumption of validity)
Scott v. State, 322 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (overbreadth/vagueness analysis for section 42.07 analyzed; acts with intent to inflict emotional distress not protected speech)
Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1972) (due process limits on vague laws; fair warning and enforcement standards)
Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1972) (vagueness as applied and First Amendment considerations in overbreadth challenges)