Webb v. Schlagal, 530 S.W.3d 793

Webb and Schlagal married in 2011, separated three months later, and divorced in 2012; Schlagal testified she left because she feared for her life because of Webb’s delusions and accusations.
During the marriage Webb exhibited delusional behavior (accusations of a prostitution ring, locking and interrogating Schlagal, shouting, police involvement).
In Jan. 2012 Webb suffered a gunshot wound to his ankle; police found a 12‑gauge shotgun rigged to a tripwire in his home and characterized the injury as self‑inflicted; officers removed his firearms.
After the divorce Webb continued to search for and contact Schlagal via Facebook and email, making multiple posts and messages accusing her of involvement in his shooting, his mother’s death, and threatening her and her family. Schlagal testified she feared for her life.
Schlagal obtained a lifetime protective order under Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 7A (stalking), which among other things enjoined Webb from contacting Schlagal and restricted firearm possession and his concealed‑handgun license. Webb appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Schlagal)	Defendant's Argument (Webb)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for stalking	Evidence (emails, Facebook posts, history of threats, police corroboration) shows a knowing course of conduct placing victim in fear	Emails/posts were protected speech or insufficient to show "knowingly" causing fear; overall evidence insufficient	Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient to support protective order under Penal § 42.072; trial court credibility determinations upheld
First Amendment (as‑applied)	Protective order targets threatening conduct, not protected speech	Emails were constitutionally protected speech	Court: As‑applied challenge waived for lack of trial objection; moreover, threatening/stalking conduct is not protected speech; claim rejected
Second Amendment / Texas Const. art. I §23 (as‑applied) — firearm prohibition and CHL suspension	Restriction is undue infringement on right to bear arms	Chapter 7A serves substantial government interest (victim protection); firearms restriction is a reasonable fit given Webb’s conduct and danger	Court: As‑applied challenge fails; intermediate scrutiny satisfied; articles 7A.03, 7A.05, 7A.07 constitutional as applied to Webb
Request for additional findings of fact/conclusions	(N/A) Trial court should have filed more detailed findings	Existing findings were adequate for appeal; no harm shown from refusal	Court: No abuse of discretion; original findings were sufficient; issue overruled

Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. 1991) (trial court findings of fact have same force as jury verdict)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal sufficiency standard and consideration of evidence in the light most favorable to prevailing party)
Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. 1994) (sufficiency review of trial court findings follows jury standard)
Manuel v. State, 357 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2011) (stalking conviction/sufficient evidence from prolonged irrational conduct and repeated communications)
Webb v. State, 991 S.W.2d 408 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (threats are not protected speech)
United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (intermediate scrutiny for firearms restrictions on those outside Heller’s core; requires a reasonable fit to government objective)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms for lawful self‑defense)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment applies to the states)