Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens, 06-25-00089-CR, January 30, 2026.
On appeal from the 202nd District Court of Bowie County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction for child grooming, refusing to entertain a constitutional challenge to Texas Penal Code § 15.032. The court held that the appellant waived his First Amendment, vagueness, and overbreadth claims by failing to provide substantive analysis or adequate briefing, thereby leaving the statute’s constitutionality intact in the face of procedural default.
Relevance to Family Law
For the Texas family law practitioner, the survival of the child grooming statute against constitutional scrutiny is a critical development in high-conflict custody litigation. In suits affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR), evidence of behavior meeting the elements of § 15.032 is often the “smoking gun” required to establish a finding of “significant impairment” to a child’s physical health or emotional development. This ruling ensures that the grooming statute remains a viable and potent tool for practitioners seeking to restrict access, move for supervised visitation, or secure a denial of conservatorship under the “best interest of the child” standard.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Matthew Riddle was convicted by a Bowie County jury of child grooming and online solicitation of a minor, receiving a ten-year prison sentence. On appeal, Riddle attempted to mount a facial and as-applied constitutional challenge to Texas Penal Code § 15.032 (the “Grooming Statute”). He asserted that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that it infringed upon First Amendment speech protections. However, his appellate brief failed to provide a deep legal nexus between the statutory language and the constitutional doctrines invoked. The court’s focus shifted from the merits of the criminal conduct to the procedural adequacy of the appellant’s legal arguments.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the appellant properly presented and preserved his constitutional challenges to Texas Penal Code § 15.032 for appellate review through adequate briefing under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, which mandates that a brief contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. The court also relied on established precedent holding that a “conclusory” brief—one that fails to provide substantive analysis or apply the law to the specific facts of the case—waives the points of error.
Application
The Texarkana Court of Appeals engaged in a procedural autopsy of the appellant’s brief rather than a substantive review of the First Amendment. The court observed that Riddle’s challenge was “transitionally and substantively” deficient. In the realm of constitutional challenges, the burden on the appellant is high: one must not only name the constitutional right allegedly infringed but must also perform a rigorous analysis of why the statute fails to pass the applicable level of scrutiny (e.g., strict or intermediate). Because Riddle provided only conclusory statements without weaving the facts of his conviction into a structured constitutional argument, the court found that he had fundamentally failed to meet his burden. The court emphasized that it is not the duty of an appellate court to construct a party’s legal arguments for them.
Holding
The court held that the appellant’s points of error regarding the constitutionality of § 15.032 were waived due to inadequate briefing. By failing to provide a substantive legal framework for his vagueness and overbreadth claims, the appellant failed to present anything for the court to review.
The court further affirmed the trial court’s judgment, sustaining the conviction and leaving the grooming statute undisturbed by this specific constitutional challenge.
Practical Application
This case serves as a stark reminder of the “briefing waiver” trap in Texas appellate practice. For family litigators dealing with parallel criminal proceedings, this holding means that § 15.032 remains “good law” and a conviction thereunder is highly insulated from collateral attacks on appeal if the briefing is not meticulously handled. When representing a parent who is a victim of a spouse’s grooming behavior, you can confidently cite this statute in temporary orders hearings to argue for the protection of the child, knowing that the most common constitutional defenses are currently failing in the appellate courts due to procedural hurdles.
Checklists
Preserving Constitutional Challenges for Appeal
- Avoid Conclusory Phrasing: Do not merely state that a statute is “vague” or “violates the First Amendment.”
- Perform Scrutiny Analysis: Explicitly state whether the statute should be subject to strict or intermediate scrutiny and why.
- Nexus to Facts: Apply the constitutional standard specifically to the client’s conduct or the specific language of the indictment.
- Separate State and Federal Claims: If applicable, provide separate analyses for the Texas Constitution and the U.S. Constitution to avoid blanket waivers.
Leveraging § 15.032 in Custody Battles
- Obtain the Criminal Record: Secure the indictment and judgment from the criminal court to use as an exhibit in the SAPCR.
- Plead Significant Impairment: Explicitly link the elements of the grooming conviction to the “significant impairment” threshold of Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131.
- Request Judicial Notice: Ask the court to take judicial notice of the criminal statute and the finality of the conviction.
Citation
Riddle v. State, No. 06-25-00089-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 30, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
The “weaponization” of Riddle in family law lies in the failure of the constitutional challenge. When a party in a divorce or custody case is accused of “grooming” (even if charges haven’t reached a jury), their counsel will often argue that the grooming statute is a “catch-all” that unconstitutionally criminalizes protected speech or parental “mentoring.” This opinion provides a counter-argument: the statute is robust, its convictions are being affirmed, and the courts are not inclined to entertain flimsy constitutional “hail Marys.”
In a Texas custody case, use this to shut down arguments that a parent’s “digital communications” with a minor are protected speech. If the conduct fits the § 15.032 framework, it is not “protected expression”; it is evidence of a predatory pattern that justifies a permanent injunction against unsupervised access or a total denial of managing conservatorship.
~~8adb2f7f-a2ef-47cf-a8ff-3901f4cfb0f4~~
Share this content: