The Seventh Court of Appeals sits in Amarillo and covers Armstrong, Bailey, Briscoe, Carson, Castro, Childress, Cochran, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crosby, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Dickens, Donley, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gray, Hale, Hall, Hansford, Hardeman, Hartley, Hemphill, Hockley, Hutchinson, Kent, King, Lamb, Lipscomb, Lubbock, Lynn, Moore, Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Parmer, Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman, Swisher, Terry, Wilbarger, Wheeler, and Yoakum counties—the largest geographic district of any Texas court of appeals.
Despite receiving only about 161 new criminal filings per year, the Seventh Court holds oral argument in 33% of criminal cases—the second-highest rate in Texas. After a court of appeals decision, either party can file a Petition for Discretionary Review (PDR) asking the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider the outcome. The CCA grants about 4.1% of PDRs from Seventh Court decisions and, when it does, rules against the lower court in about 80% of those cases.
This Court hears appeals from pretrial habeas denials (articles 11.08 and 11.09) and from 11.072 rulings (community supervision). Habeas under article 11.07—the main felony route—is filed with the convicting court and decided by the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Direct Appeals and Postconviction Relief for the full map.
Seventh Court of Appeals—Cases
- Owens v. State, No. 07-23-00115-CR (direct appeal, transferred from the Fourth Court). Harassment under section 42.07(a)(7) of the Texas Penal Code for messages to a former psychologist. We raised seven issues, including that the subsection is unconstitutional facially and as applied in light of Counterman v. Colorado, that the evidence was insufficient under a hypothetically correct charge, that the message content was irrelevant under Rule 401, that protected speech should have been charged as a defense, and that the charge permitted a non-unanimous verdict on the required intent.
- Ex parte Fisher, No. 07-15-00098-CR (pretrial habeas). Online solicitation of a minor under section 33.021(c) of the Texas Penal Code. We mounted a three-pronged facial challenge: overbreadth under the First Amendment, vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment, and a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.
- Ex parte Sanders, No. 07-18-00335-CR (pretrial habeas). Harassment under section 42.07(a)(7) of the Texas Penal Code. We argued that the subsection is facially overbroad under the First Amendment and that Scott v. State no longer controls after Reed v. Town of Gilbert changed how courts identify content-based restrictions.
- Ex parte Claycomb, No. 07-20-00238-CR (pretrial habeas; companion original proceeding No. 07-22-00078-CR). Online impersonation under section 33.07(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code for creating a web page using the complainant’s name. We argued that the statute is a content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny and is facially overbroad and vague.