Ordonez, Ex Parte Lyla

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0145-21

EX PARTE LYLA ORDONEZ, Appellant

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

OPINION

Appellant was charged with harassment via electronic communications. See T EX.

P ENAL C ODE § 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
Ordonez - 2

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.

DELIVERED November 2, 2022

DO NOT PUBLISH