CROSSOVER: Briefing Waiver Affirms Online Solicitation Conviction: The Procedural Death Knell for Parental Rights in SAPCR Crossovers
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin, 06-25-00090-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 online solicitation of a minor, holding that the appellant waived his challenge to the simultaneous application of child grooming and solicitation statutes. Because the point of error was inadequately briefed, the court declined to reach the merits of the statutory conflict, leaving the twenty-year sentence undisturbed.
Relevance to Family Law
In the high-stakes arena of Texas Family Law, a conviction under Texas Penal Code Section 33.021 is effectively a “death knell” for parental rights and conservatorship. This case highlights a critical procedural trap: even if a criminal conviction is based on a potentially erroneous application of overlapping statutes, a failure to properly brief those issues on appeal renders the conviction final. For the family law practitioner, this means the rebuttable presumption against conservatorship under Texas Family Code § 153.131 and the mandatory restrictions on access under § 153.041 become permanent fixtures of the litigation, as the criminal judgment will remain immune to collateral attack once the procedural waiver occurs in the appellate court.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Matthew Riddle was convicted by a Bowie County jury of online solicitation of a minor and sentenced to twenty years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The conviction was secured under Texas Penal Code Section 33.021. Parallel to this conviction, Riddle faced charges related to child grooming under Section 15.032. On appeal, Riddle attempted to argue that the trial court erred because the state should not be permitted to apply these two statutes—online solicitation and child grooming—simultaneously against a defendant for the same course of conduct. However, the appellate court noted that this argument was presented without the necessary legal depth or record support required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Issues Decided
The central issue was whether an indictment for online solicitation of a minor must be dismissed when a defendant is also convicted of child grooming, based on the theory that the statutes cannot be applied simultaneously.
Rules Applied
The court looked to Texas Penal Code Section 33.021 (Online Solicitation of a Minor) and Section 15.032 (Child Grooming). More importantly, the court applied the briefing standards of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Under these rules, an appellant’s brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. Failure to do so results in a “briefing waiver,” where the court refuses to consider the merits of the point of error.
Application
The court’s application of the law was strictly procedural. Justice Rambin noted that Riddle’s appeal in this case raised the exact same issues as his companion case (No. 06-25-00088-CR). In both instances, the appellant failed to provide a substantive legal analysis or a framework that would allow the court to evaluate the alleged statutory conflict. The court reasoned that it is not the duty of an appellate court to perform independent legal research or to construct a party’s argument. Because the appellant provided no path to relief through his briefing, the court applied the waiver doctrine.
Holding
The court overruled Riddle’s point of error, holding that the issue was inadequately briefed. The court did not decide whether the two statutes actually conflict or if they can be applied simultaneously; rather, it held that the appellant had not met his burden to present that issue for review.
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, confirming the twenty-year sentence and the $10,000 fine.
Practical Application
This case serves as a warning for crossover litigation where criminal defense strategies impact family law outcomes. If you are representing a party in a SAPCR or divorce where the opposing party has been convicted of a felony involving a minor, you must monitor the status of the criminal appeal. If the criminal appellant fails to meet the technical briefing requirements—as seen here—the conviction becomes a “settled fact” for the purposes of your civil case. Conversely, if you are defending a parent in this position, you must ensure that their criminal appellate counsel is not taking shortcuts, as a briefing waiver in the Court of Appeals is effectively a surrender of the parent’s position in the family court.
Checklists
Managing the Crossover Case
- Verify whether the criminal conviction is final or pending appeal.
- Obtain copies of the appellant’s brief in the criminal case to identify potential waiver issues.
- If the conviction is affirmed on briefing waiver, prepare a Motion for Summary Judgment in the SAPCR regarding conservatorship based on the finality of the judgment.
Avoiding Briefing Waiver (for Appellate Counsel)
- Ensure every legal assertion is paired with a specific citation to the Texas Penal Code or relevant case law.
- Avoid “conclusory” points of error that lack a narrative legal argument.
- Cross-reference the record (Reporter’s Record and Clerk’s Record) for every factual statement to maintain compliance with TRAP 38.1.
Citation
Riddle v. State, No. 06-25-00090-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 30, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This criminal ruling is a potent weapon in Texas divorce and custody litigation. Under the “best interest” standard of Texas Family Code § 153.002, a conviction for online solicitation of a minor is a nuclear event. Because the Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction based on briefing waiver, the defendant-parent loses the ability to argue in the family court that the conviction was “unlawful” or “procedurally flawed.” The family law litigator should use this memorandum opinion to move for an immediate injunction against any unsupervised access, arguing that the conviction is now final and that the parent’s failure to adequately challenge it on appeal further demonstrates a lack of merit in their defense. In a termination proceeding under Chapter 161, this finality is the cornerstone for proving conduct that endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child.
~~f866d4a0-acf9-4370-a940-f2c80e10c864~~
Share this content:
