Schlittler v. State
488 S.W.3d 306
Tex. Crim. App.2016Background
- David Schlittler pleaded guilty (2007) to aggravated sexual assault of his former step-daughter B.M.; later adjudicated and imprisoned for that offense.
- A Texas family court (SAPCR) modified parental rights for Schlittler’s biological son B.S., permanently enjoining private or indirect contact with B.S. except for limited supervised visitation (three Saturdays/month, two hours) and forbidding contact through specific third parties.
- While incarcerated (2008–2010) Schlittler communicated with B.S. via social media through a third party, allegedly attempting to pressure B.S. to influence B.M. to recant; L.M. discovered the communications and alerted prison officials.
- Schlittler was convicted under Tex. Penal Code § 38.111 (Improper Contact with a Victim) for contacting a victim or a victim’s family member while confined after a covered sex offense and sentenced to eight additional years.
- He appealed, arguing the statute was unconstitutional as applied: (1) substantive due process — it infringed his fundamental parental liberty to communicate with his son; (2) equal protection — it singled out incarcerated sex offenders and unduly burdened parenting rights. The court of appeals upheld the conviction; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Schlittler's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 38.111, as applied, violated substantive due process by infringing a fundamental parental liberty to communicate with his son | § 38.111 swept too broadly and cut off a fundamental right to care, custody, and private communication with his child | Schlittler had no protected right to the private communications at issue because a preexisting SAPCR order had already enjoined such contact | Court held Schlittler failed to show a protected liberty interest in the specific private prison communications (SAPCR order precluded that right); rational-basis review applied and statute survived |
| Whether § 38.111, as applied, violated equal protection by singling out incarcerated sex offenders and burdening parental rights | The statute discriminates among similarly situated incarcerated offenders and impairs a fundamental parental right, requiring strict scrutiny | Sex offenders are not a suspect class; any burden on parental rights is incidental to criminal conduct and/or preempted by the SAPCR order; classification is rationally related to protecting victims | Court held no equal-protection violation: no suspect class, no infringement of a parental right Schlittler actually possessed, and any burden is incidental; statute upheld under rational-basis review |
| Whether § 38.111 should be analyzed as a prison regulation invoking Turner standard | N/A (argued by implication) | If treated as a prison regulation, statute satisfies Turner rational-relationship-to-penological-interests test | Court declined to treat statute as a prison regulation but noted it would survive even the lesser Turner standard and therefore need not apply it |
| Scope of remedy (as-applied vs facial challenge) | Challenged statute as applied to him for cutting off contact with his son | State framed dispute as an as-applied challenge given SAPCR order | Court resolved only the as-applied claim: affirmed conviction and did not reach broader facial questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (framework for identifying fundamental liberty interests and strict-scrutiny threshold)
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) (distinguishing fundamental vs. nonfundamental rights; rational-basis test for nonfundamental rights)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental right to care, custody, and control recognized as fundamental)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal protection principles; rational-basis baseline and when strict scrutiny applies)
- Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) (equal protection applied where law intruded on fundamental rights like procreation)
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (prison regulation liberty analysis and Turner rational-relation test)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (standard for reviewing prison regulations affecting constitutional rights)