Opinion
PD-0145-21
11-02-2022
EX PARTE LYLA ORDONEZ, Appellant
DO NOT PUBLISH
ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HARRIS COUNTY
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant was charged with harassment via electronic communications. See Tex. Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7). She filed a pre-trial habeas writ application arguing the electronic harassment statute is facially unconstitutional. The trial court denied relief. She appealed, and the Court of Appeals held the statute to be unconstitutionally overbroad. Ex parte Ordonez, No. 14-19-01005-CR (Tex. App. - Houston [14th] Jan. 26, 2021, pet. filed).
The State filed a petition for discretionary review arguing that Appellant failed to meet her burden to show the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and the Court of Appeals erred in finding the statute unconstitutional. In Ex parte Barton, No. PD-1123-19, 2022 WL 1021061 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 6, 2022), and Ex parte Sanders, No. PD-0469-19, 2022 WL 1021055 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 6, 2022), we held a previous version of the statute, first adopted in 2001, constitutional on its face. See Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1222 (S.B. 139), § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Appellant's case is governed by the 2017 version of the electronic harassment statute. See Acts 2017, 85th Leg., ch. 522 (S.B. 179), §§ 13, 14, eff. Sept. 1, 2017.
The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our decisions in Ex parte Barton and Ex parte Sanders. Accordingly, we grant the State's petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Ex parte Barton and Ex parte Sanders.