Schlittler, David, PD-1505-14

Appellant David Schlittler, a convicted offender, challenged the application of Tex. Penal Code § 38.111(a) (working with Code Crim. Proc. art. 62.001(5)) that restricts certain offenders' contact with children.
The statutes permit an offender’s spouse to consent to or effectively bar the offender’s communication or visitation with the couple’s child, creating differential outcomes depending on the spouse’s choice.
Schlittler argues the statutory scheme delegated to his ex-wife authority to withhold contact with their son, thereby impairing his fundamental parental liberty interest.
He raised as-applied constitutional challenges under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses (not a facial challenge).
The Twelfth Court of Appeals upheld the statute as applied; Schlittler sought discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 38.111(a) (as applied) violates Equal Protection by delegating decisive authority to spouse	Schlittler: delegation causes arbitrary, unequal treatment of similarly situated offenders and infringes fundamental parental right, so strict scrutiny applies	State: statute validly defines class and conditionally restricts contact for protection; no unequal treatment requiring strict scrutiny	Appellant contends error below; brief argues statute unconstitutional as applied (court outcome pending review)
Whether § 38.111(a) (as applied) violates Due Process by impairing parental liberty	Schlittler: statute intrudes on fundamental right to parent; prisoners retain fundamental rights not inconsistent with incarceration; deprivation here is unjustified	State: restrictions tied to penological/statutory ends and not facially overbroad; application is within state power	Appellant argues statute unconstitutional as applied; seeks reversal and dismissal

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (struck down irrational classifications; equal protection standard explained)
Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (classifications affecting fundamental rights receive heightened scrutiny)
Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1 (distinguishes facial from as-applied challenges)
Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (prisoners retain constitutional rights consistent with incarceration)
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (as-applied equal protection challenge where fundamental rights implicated)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental right to care, custody, and control of children is fundamental)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (standards for prisoners’ constitutional claims)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (facial-challenge standard)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (protection against arbitrary and personal power under equal protection)