CROSSOVER: Procedural Pitfalls & The Child Grooming Statute: Why Conclusory Constitutional Arguments Fail in Texas Appeals

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef, 06-25-00088-CR, January 30, 2026.

On appeal from the 202nd District Court of Bowie County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for child grooming and online solicitation, holding that the appellant waived his constitutional challenges to the grooming statute by failing to provide any legal authority or substantive analysis in his brief as required by TRAP 38.1(i). Furthermore, the court clarified that Texas Penal Code § 33.021(g) expressly authorizes simultaneous prosecution for online solicitation of a minor and other offenses, such as child grooming, arising from the same conduct.

Relevance to Family Law

While this is a criminal appeal, its implications for high-stakes Texas family law litigation—specifically in SAPCR proceedings involving allegations of sexual misconduct—are significant. Family law practitioners frequently encounter “grooming” allegations as the basis for supervised visitation, denial of access, or the termination of parental rights. This case serves as a stark reminder of the rigorous standards required to challenge the constitutionality of the statutes that often undergird “best interest” findings. Moreover, the court’s affirmation of simultaneous prosecution for related offenses under Section 33.021(g) provides a roadmap for how aggressive counsel can characterize a party’s criminal exposure in a parallel civil proceeding.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Matthew Riddle was convicted by a Bowie County jury of child grooming and assessed ten years’ imprisonment. In companion cases, he was also convicted of online solicitation of a minor. The convictions stemmed from conduct involving the persuasion and solicitation of a child younger than 18. On appeal, Riddle raised a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Texas Penal Code § 15.032 (the child grooming statute), alleging it was vague, overbroad, and violated the First Amendment. Additionally, he argued that the state was legally barred from applying the grooming statute and the online solicitation statute simultaneously. Critically, Riddle’s appellate briefing contained references to constitutional doctrines but lacked citations to specific legal authorities or a structured analysis of why the statutes failed constitutional muster.

Issues Decided

1. Whether the appellant waived his facial constitutional challenges to Texas Penal Code § 15.032 due to inadequate briefing under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i).
2. Whether Texas law permits the simultaneous application of and prosecution under Section 15.032 (Child Grooming) and Section 33.021 (Online Solicitation of a Minor).

Rules Applied

The court relied heavily on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i), which mandates that an appellant’s brief contain a clear and concise argument with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. In the context of constitutional challenges, the court applied the standard from Allen v. State, noting that statutes are presumed valid and the challenger bears the heavy burden of establishing unconstitutionality. Furthermore, the court applied the plain language of Texas Penal Code § 33.021(g), which acts as an “anti-merger” provision, explicitly allowing for prosecution under that section, another law, or both, when conduct constitutes multiple offenses.

Application

The court’s application of the law centered on the procedural failure of the appellant’s counsel. Justice van Cleef emphasized that “it is not sufficient that appellant raise only a general constitutional doctrine.” Because Riddle’s brief mentioned the First Amendment and “vagueness” without providing a single citation in his index of authorities or the body of his argument, the court refused to perform a “sua sponte” search for legal support. The court treated the constitutional claims as waived. Moving to the statutory conflict argument, the court found it meritless based on the express text of the Penal Code. Because Section 33.021(g) contains an express authorization for cumulative prosecution, the appellant’s argument that the two statutes could not be applied simultaneously was contradicted by the very statute he sought to challenge.

Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment on both issues.

Regarding the constitutional challenges, the court held that the appellant failed to satisfy the requirements of TRAP 38.1(i). Conclusory assertions regarding a statute’s unconstitutionality, without specific legal authority and analysis, are inadequate to preserve or present an issue for review.

Regarding the simultaneous prosecution, the court held that Texas Penal Code § 33.021(g) explicitly permits a defendant to be prosecuted for online solicitation and any other applicable offense (including grooming) arising from the same conduct.

Practical Application

For the family law practitioner, this case underscores the “procedural rigor” required when challenging the statutory framework used in custody disputes. If you are representing a parent accused of conduct that falls under the broad umbrella of “grooming,” and you intend to argue that the statutory definitions used by an amicus or an expert are unconstitutionally vague, you must brief those issues with granular detail.

In a divorce with parallel criminal proceedings, this case confirms that a client faces “stacked” liability. The “both/and” nature of Section 33.021(g) means a client may not be able to rely on a “lesser included offense” or “merger” argument to mitigate the impact of criminal findings on a subsequent custody determination.

Checklists

Preserving Constitutional Challenges to Statutes

• Identify the Challenge Type: Determine if the challenge is “facial” (unconstitutional in all applications) or “as-applied” (unconstitutional as to your specific client).
• TRAP 38.1(i) Compliance:
  • Include a comprehensive Index of Authorities.
  • Provide specific citations to SCOTUS or Texas Court of Criminal Appeals precedents for every constitutional claim.
  • Avoid “conclusory” statements; if you allege “vagueness,” you must explain how the statute fails to provide notice or invites arbitrary enforcement.
• Presumption Rebuttal: Prepare to overcome the heavy presumption that Texas statutes are valid under Allen v. State.

Analyzing Cumulative Criminal Offenses in SAPCR

• Statutory Review: Check the Penal Code for “non-exclusivity” clauses like § 33.021(g).
• Best Interest Testimony: If a party is charged with multiple offenses for the same conduct, use the statutory language to argue that the legislature intended these to be distinct and cumulative harms to the child.
• Collateral Estoppel Check: Monitor the criminal appeal; if a party waives their constitutional challenge in the criminal court (as Riddle did here), they may be barred from re-litigating the validity of that statute in the family court.

Citation

Matthew Riddle v. The State of Texas, No. 06-25-00088-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 30, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

View Full Opinion Here

Family Law Crossover

In Texas custody litigation, “grooming” is the ultimate nuclear option. This ruling can be weaponized in several ways:

1. Character Evidence and “Multiple Intent”: Because the court affirmed that grooming (§ 15.032) and solicitation (§ 33.021) can be prosecuted simultaneously, a petitioner in a custody case can argue that the respondent’s conduct represents multiple distinct layers of predatory intent.
2. The Danger of “Conclusory” Defenses: Just as Riddle waived his constitutional defense by being “briefing-lite,” family law attorneys often make “conclusory” constitutional arguments (e.g., “This violates my client’s fundamental right to parent”) without citing the specific standards of Troxel or In re C.J.C. This case is a warning: the appellate court will not save a poorly briefed constitutional argument.
3. Protective Order Strategy: When seeking a protective order based on online conduct, practitioners should cite Section 33.021(g) to remind the trial court that the legislature views this conduct as so severe that it warrants cumulative punishments, supporting the argument that the conduct is likely to occur again in the future.

~~796cee2f-6cb1-42b8-b815-d59d4a99faae~~