Criminal solicitation of a minor is an inchoate felony under Penal Code § 15.031: requesting, commanding, or attempting to induce a person under 17 — or someone believed to be under 17 — to engage in conduct that would constitute a listed offense. Punishment lands one category below the offense solicited, and the statute bars conviction on uncorroborated testimony. Below: the statute text, the grading ladder, the corroboration rule, defense strategies, and what happens after a charge in Collin, Dallas, Denton, or Tarrant County.
Free, Confidential Case Review
Tell us what happened. A defense attorney reviews every submission — usually within the hour during business hours.
Published 2026-07-05 · Reviewed by Reggie London and Njeri London, Co-Founding Partners · Last reviewed: 2026-07-05
Peer Recognition
Martindale-Hubbell® 2026 Honors
Independent peer-review ratings recognizing legal ability and ethical standards.
Awards reflect peer-reviewed ratings only. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Controlling statute:Texas Penal Code § 15.031 Classification: Derived — one category lower than the offense solicited (§ 15.031(e)); same category for qualifying criminal-street-gang actors Punishment range: Typically state jail felony through first-degree felony, set by the offense solicited — see the derivation table below
The controlling statute: Penal Code § 15.031
Criminal solicitation of a minor sits in Chapter 15 of the Texas Penal Code — the preparatory offenses — alongside criminal attempt (§ 15.01), criminal conspiracy (§ 15.02), and general criminal solicitation (§ 15.03). Like every inchoate offense, it is complete the moment the request is made with the required intent. No meeting has to occur, no one has to be touched, and the offense solicited never has to happen. Section 15.031(d) says so expressly: it is no defense that the minor was not criminally responsible, that the minor was acquitted or never prosecuted, that the actor belonged to a class of persons legally incapable of committing the underlying offense in an individual capacity — or that the offense solicited was actually committed.
The statute has two branches. Subsection (a) applies when the actor, intending that an offense listed by Article 42A.054(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure be committed, requests, commands, or attempts to induce a minor to engage in specific conduct that would constitute that offense — or make the minor a party to it. The 42A.054(a) list reaches murder, capital murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, indecency with a child, sexual performance by a child, trafficking and compelling-prostitution offenses, and specified drug-free-zone drug crimes.
Subsection (b) is the branch prosecutors typically charge. It applies when the actor intends that an offense under § 20A.02(a)(7) or (8) (child sex trafficking), § 21.02 (continuous sexual abuse of a young child), § 21.11 (indecency with a child), § 22.011 (sexual assault), § 22.021 (aggravated sexual assault), § 43.02 (prostitution), § 43.021 (solicitation of prostitution), § 43.05(a)(2) (compelling prostitution of a minor), or § 43.25 (sexual performance by a child) be committed, and “by any means requests, commands, or attempts to induce a minor or another whom the person believes to be a minor” to engage in conduct that — “under the circumstances surrounding the actor’s conduct as the actor believes them to be” — would constitute one of those offenses or make the minor a party to it.
Two definitions do heavy lifting. A “minor” is an individual younger than 17, § 15.031(f). And the believed-to-be-a-minor language appears only in subsection (b) — subsection (a) requires an actual minor. That asymmetry is why undercover-profile sting cases are charged under (b): the other side of the conversation can be a 45-year-old detective, and the statute still applies if the State proves the actor believed otherwise. “By any means” is equally broad — text messages, chat apps, an in-person conversation, or a request routed through an intermediary all qualify.
Legislative history matters here more than on most charge pages. The section was added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, effective January 1, 1996, and the 1999 Legislature added the believed-minor language and the sexual-offense branch. The community-supervision recodification that took effect in 2017 replaced the old “3g” cross-reference (article 42.12, § 3g) with Article 42A.054(a). Most recently, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., ch. 807 (H.B. 1540) added prostitution (§ 43.02) and solicitation of prostitution (§ 43.021) to the subsection (b) list. If the conduct alleged predates an amendment, the earlier version may control both the elements and the grade.
Classification & punishment range
Section 15.031(e) sets a derived grade: an offense under the section is “one category lower than the solicited offense.” There is one exception. The solicitation is punished at the same category as the solicited offense if the State proves the actor (1) was 17 or older and a member of a criminal street gang as defined by § 71.01, and (2) acted with intent to further the gang’s criminal activities or to avoid detection as a member. Otherwise the ladder simply steps down one rung: capital felony to first degree, first to second, second to third, third to state jail felony, and a state jail felony down to a Class A misdemeanor.
Derived: one category lower than the offense solicited (§ 15.031(e)); same category for qualifying criminal-street-gang actors
Range
Typically state jail felony through first-degree felony, per the derivation table below
Last reviewed
2026-07-05
How the grade derives from the offense solicited
The table applies § 15.031(e) to the offenses most often alleged, using each underlying statute’s current grade:
Offense solicited
Its grade
§ 15.031 grade
Confinement & fine
Capital murder, § 19.03 (via Art. 42A.054(a))
Capital felony
First-degree felony
5–99 years or life; fine to $10,000
Aggravated sexual assault of a child, § 22.021
First degree
Second degree
2–20 years; fine to $10,000
Continuous sexual abuse of a young child, § 21.02
First degree
Second degree
2–20 years; fine to $10,000
Child sex trafficking, § 20A.02(a)(7) or (8)
First degree
Second degree
2–20 years; fine to $10,000
Compelling prostitution of a minor, § 43.05(a)(2)
First degree
Second degree
2–20 years; fine to $10,000
Sexual assault, § 22.011
Second degree
Third degree
2–10 years; fine to $10,000
Indecency with a child by contact, § 21.11(a)(1)
Second degree
Third degree
2–10 years; fine to $10,000
Indecency with a child by exposure, § 21.11(a)(2)
Third degree
State jail felony
180 days–2 years state jail; fine to $10,000
Three reading notes. First, the grade keys to the solicited offense as it would have been graded — soliciting a child younger than 14 into a sexual performance solicits the first-degree version of § 43.25(b), so the State will argue the solicitation is second-degree rather than third. Second, special minimum terms attached to completed offenses — the 25-year floors for certain § 21.02 and § 22.021 victims — do not carry down; the solicitation takes the standard range of its own category. Third, habitual and repeat-felony enhancements under Penal Code Chapter 12 still apply in addition to the derived grade.
A clearly hypothetical example: a 40-year-old messages an account he believes belongs to a 15-year-old and asks to meet for sex. Sexual assault of a child under § 22.011 is a second-degree felony, so the § 15.031 count is a third-degree felony — two to ten years. If the same messages instead pressed for explicit videos, the State could allege solicitation of sexual performance by a child — and a younger believed age can raise the underlying grade, and with it the solicitation. The words of the request drive the exposure.
Elements the State must prove
To convict under § 15.031, the State must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt:
Intent that a listed offense be committed. The actor’s purpose at the moment of the communication must be that an offense on the applicable list — Article 42A.054(a) for subsection (a), the enumerated sexual offenses for subsection (b) — actually occur.
A request, command, or attempt to induce. Any means qualifies: spoken words, texts, direct messages, or communication routed through a third person.
A target who is a minor — or believed to be one. Younger than 17 for both branches; subsection (b) also reaches “another whom the person believes to be a minor.”
Conduct that would constitute the offense. The specific conduct requested must, “under the circumstances surrounding the actor’s conduct as the actor believes them to be,” amount to the listed offense or make the minor a party to it.
What the State does not have to prove is just as important. Under § 15.031(d), it is no defense that the minor could not be prosecuted, that the minor was acquitted or immune, that the actor belonged to a class of persons legally incapable of committing the underlying offense individually, or that the offense solicited was actually committed. And because the crime is complete at the request, backing out later is not an element-level defense — it matters, if at all, through renunciation, discussed below.
What does the corroboration requirement in § 15.031(c) demand?
Section 15.031(c) contains a proof safeguard most Texas offenses lack: a person “may not be convicted under this section on the uncorroborated testimony of the minor allegedly solicited unless the solicitation is made under circumstances strongly corroborative of both the solicitation itself and the actor’s intent that the minor act on the solicitation.”
Texas courts treat this the way they treat the accomplice-witness rule. In Lankford v. State, 255 S.W.3d 275 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. ref’d), the court explained that the corroboration required under § 15.031(c) is analogous to the requirement of Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.14, and the sufficiency test is the same: set the minor’s testimony entirely aside and ask whether other evidence tends to connect the accused to the solicitation. The corroborating evidence does not have to prove guilt by itself, and it does not have to link the accused directly — but it must exist. In Lankford the court found the standard met where the defendant admitted driving the teenager home, adults described the boy’s visibly shaken condition immediately afterward, and the defendant’s own account repeated distinctive language from the boy’s statement.
The practical significance splits by case type. In sting prosecutions, corroboration is rarely the battleground — the “minor” is an officer and the solicitation lives in preserved chat logs. Where § 15.031(c) has real teeth is the one-on-one allegation: a teenager reports a verbal proposition, no recording exists, and the State’s case rests on a single account. There, the defense tests every claimed corroborating circumstance — timing, outcry details, digital records, witness observations — because if the corroboration fails, the conviction cannot stand.
How is § 15.031 different from online solicitation and other related charges?
Any means — in person, by phone, by text, through an intermediary
Internet, text or electronic message, or commercial online service
Who counts as a minor
Younger than 17; subsection (b) adds anyone the actor believes is younger than 17
Younger than 17, or an individual the actor believes is younger than 17 (§ 33.021(a)(1))
Grade
Derived — one category below the offense solicited
Fixed — third degree for sexually explicit communication under (b), second degree if the minor is under 14; second degree for soliciting a meeting under (c)
Corroboration required
Yes — § 15.031(c)
No comparable provision
Fantasy defense
Not expressly addressed; the State still must prove belief and intent
Expressly barred for meeting-solicitation counts by § 33.021(d)
Registration hook
Art. 62.001(5)(G) — depends on the offense solicited
Art. 62.001(5)(J) — a § 33.021 conviction is itself reportable
Neighboring offenses draw different lines. General criminal solicitation under § 15.03 covers soliciting anyone — usually an adult — but only for capital or first-degree felonies, and it grades first-degree for a solicited capital offense and second-degree for a solicited first-degree felony. Enticing a child (§ 25.04) is a custody-interference offense — luring a child from a parent or guardian — not a sexual-solicitation statute. Child grooming (§ 15.032), added effective September 1, 2023, criminalizes persuading or enticing a child younger than 18 toward sexual conduct as a third-degree felony (second-degree with qualifying priors) — a fixed-grade companion count the State can file alongside § 15.031. And when the conduct actually occurred, the State charges the completed offense — for example indecency with a child (§ 21.11) — instead of, or on top of, the solicitation.
What defense strategies work against a § 15.031 charge?
Solicitation cases are decided on the elements, the paper record, and the statute’s own safeguards. L and L Law Group builds § 15.031 defenses along these lines:
Intent at the moment of the words. The State must prove the actor intended that the specific listed offense be committed when the request was made. Ambiguous language, banter pulled out of thread context, or a request that does not actually describe conduct constituting the alleged offense leaves an element unproven.
The defenses of the solicited offense come with it. In Sanchez v. State, 400 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that § 15.031(b) incorporates the entirety of the solicited offense’s statute — including its affirmative defenses — so the three-year age-gap defense in § 22.011(e) applied in a solicitation-of-a-minor prosecution and the jury should have been instructed on it. Sanchez also confirms the statute “looks to the facts as the defendant ‘believes them to be,’” which cuts both ways: it sustains sting charges, and it opens defensive theories built on what the accused actually believed.
Corroboration failure. Discussed above — where the State’s case is the minor’s uncorroborated account, § 15.031(c) is a sufficiency bar, not a suggestion.
Renunciation (§ 15.04). Texas recognizes an affirmative defense where the actor countermanded the solicitation before the object offense was committed, took further affirmative action that prevented it, and acted under circumstances showing a voluntary and complete renunciation. Renunciation is not voluntary if it was prompted by an increased risk of detection or amounted to postponing the plan or shifting to a different target (§ 15.04(c)). One wrinkle counsel must litigate: § 15.04(b)’s text names §§ 15.02 and 15.03, so its extension to a § 15.031 charge is a statutory-construction argument rather than settled ground. Even where the full defense is contested, § 15.04(d) makes proven renunciation punishment mitigation — a one-grade reduction at sentencing.
Entrapment (§ 8.06). Where law enforcement’s persuasion was likely to cause an otherwise law-abiding person to commit the offense — as opposed to merely affording an opportunity — entrapment is a defense. Decoy operations that initiate contact, steer conversations toward sexual topics, and escalate past the target’s hesitation supply the raw material; the legal standard remains demanding.
The limits of fantasy and impossibility arguments. “There was no real minor” is not a defense to a subsection (b) charge — the statute reaches a person the actor believes is a minor, and Sanchez treated a detective operating a 15-year-old persona as a real solicitation target. Role-play and fantasy narratives therefore rise or fall on the belief element: the defense must show the accused did not actually believe the other party was under 17 — profile inconsistencies, stated-age disclaimers, and platform context all matter. For a companion § 33.021(c) count, the Legislature barred fantasy defenses outright.
Authorship and attribution. Shared devices, logged-in accounts, and open networks raise the question of who typed the messages. Device forensics, IP records, and usage patterns can put reasonable doubt on identity — the element every other element depends on.
Enhancements & collateral consequences
The gang provision is the statute’s only internal enhancement: § 15.031(e) lifts the offense to the same category as the solicited offense for actors 17 or older who were criminal-street-gang members acting to further gang activity or avoid detection. Beyond that, Chapter 12 repeat-offender enhancements apply, and solicitation counts are routinely filed alongside § 33.021, criminal attempt (§ 15.01), or a completed offense when the facts support them.
Sex-offender registration
Registration is the collateral consequence that drives most plea decisions, and for § 15.031 it turns on which offense was solicited. Article 62.001(5)(G) of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes reportable “an attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation, as defined by Chapter 15 (Preparatory Offenses), Penal Code, to commit an offense or engage in conduct listed in Paragraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (K), or (L)” — paragraphs that cover indecency with a child, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, continuous sexual abuse, compelling prostitution, sexual performance by a child, child pornography offenses, and child sex trafficking. Solicitation of one of those offenses is a reportable conviction requiring registration with the Texas Department of Public Safety. By contrast, a subsection (a) solicitation of a non-sexual 42A.054(a) offense — murder, for example — is a serious felony but not a sex-offender-registration offense.
Duration follows from the definitions. Lifetime registration under Article 62.101(a) attaches to “sexually violent offenses” and certain trafficking and repeat offenses; the definition in Article 62.001(6) lists completed offenses and does not include § 15.031. A reportable solicitation conviction therefore ordinarily falls under Article 62.101(c), with the duty ending on the 10th anniversary of release from confinement, discharge from supervision, or dismissal — whichever comes last. The cross-references are technical and the Legislature amends them; counsel should run the analysis against the judgment in the specific case.
Other collateral consequences
A felony conviction carries the standard cascade: firearm prohibitions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and Texas Penal Code § 46.04; professional-license and educator-certification exposure; immigration consequences for non-citizens, since offenses involving minors are treated severely under federal immigration law; housing and employment screening; and — where registration attaches — residence and presence restrictions that vary by city. An offense requiring Chapter 62 registration is excluded from nondisclosure, and a conviction cannot be expunged, which is why outcome strategy — acquittal, dismissal, grand-jury no-bill, or a negotiated plea to a non-registrable offense — drives everything.
What happens after an arrest in a § 15.031 case?
Most § 15.031 arrests arrive one of two ways: a warrant round-up after an undercover operation, or an arrest following a family or school outcry and a forensic interview. Either way the path is the same. The arrested person is magistrated under Code of Criminal Procedure article 15.17 — usually within 48 hours — where a magistrate sets bond and, in these cases, layered conditions: no contact with the complainant, no unsupervised contact with minors, and frequently internet, social-media, and device restrictions with monitoring.
Expect devices to be gone. Phones and computers are seized under search warrants, imaged, and queued for forensic examination — a process that can take months and often shapes the charging instrument more than the arrest report does. Because the derived grade makes nearly every § 15.031 case a felony, the case must be presented to a grand jury for indictment. The grand-jury stage is a genuine opportunity: corroboration defects, belief-element weaknesses, and context the detective’s summary omitted can be put before the panel through counsel.
After indictment, article 39.14 discovery produces the full record — complete chat threads rather than excerpts, forensic extraction reports, and sting-operation protocols. Pretrial litigation then targets the warrants, the interview statements, and the sufficiency of corroboration, and the case resolves by dismissal, negotiated plea, or trial. The derived-grade structure gives the defense unusual negotiating texture: contesting which offense was solicited can move the exposure a full felony category.
Where are these cases prosecuted in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant County?
Because the derived grade almost always lands at felony level, § 15.031 cases are indicted and tried in district court. In Collin County, felony cases are heard at the Collin County Courthouse (the Russell A. Steindam Courts Building), 2100 Bloomdale Rd in McKinney; Frisco arrests on the Collin side of town are filed there. In Dallas County, felony dockets run through the Frank Crowley Courts Building west of downtown Dallas. In Denton County, cases are heard at the Denton County Courts Building in Denton — the venue for arrests on the west side of Frisco and in Little Elm, The Colony, and Lewisville. In Tarrant County, felony cases proceed at the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center in Fort Worth.
A practice reality across all four: solicitation-of-a-minor operations in North Texas are typically run by regional Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task-force officers working with local departments, so the arresting agency on the paperwork is often not the agency that ran the chat. That matters for discovery — the operating agency holds the protocols, the decoy training materials, and the full unedited chat logs, and obtaining them is part of the defense work. Our office is in Frisco, which straddles the Collin–Denton county line; we defend § 15.031 cases in all four counties from that base.
Key Legal Terms
Solicitation (§ 15.031)
A request, command, or attempt to induce — by any means — directed at a minor or believed minor, made with intent that a listed offense be committed. The offense is complete at the moment of the ask.
Minor (§ 15.031(f))
An individual younger than 17 years of age. Subsection (b) extends liability to solicitation of a person the actor believes is younger than 17, whatever the person’s actual age.
One-Category-Lower Rule (§ 15.031(e))
The grading mechanism: the solicitation takes the punishment category one step below the offense solicited — a solicited first-degree felony yields a second-degree charge — except for qualifying criminal-street-gang actors, who face the same category.
Corroboration Requirement (§ 15.031(c))
A bar on conviction founded on the minor’s uncorroborated testimony unless the circumstances strongly corroborate both the solicitation itself and the actor’s intent that the minor act on it; applied like the accomplice-witness rule.
Renunciation (§ 15.04)
An affirmative defense for an actor who countermands the solicitation, prevents the object offense, and does so voluntarily and completely; a proven renunciation at punishment reduces the grade one level under § 15.04(d).
Reportable Conviction (Art. 62.001(5)(G))
The registration hook: a Chapter 15 solicitation is a sex-offender-registration offense when the offense solicited appears in the cross-referenced paragraphs of Article 62.001(5).
Article 42A.054(a) List
The community-supervision limitation list that subsection (a) keys to — murder, capital murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, listed sexual offenses against children, and specified drug-free-zone crimes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is criminal solicitation of a minor under Texas law?
Criminal solicitation of a minor, Penal Code § 15.031, is requesting, commanding, or attempting to induce someone under 17 — or someone the actor believes is under 17 — to engage in conduct that would constitute one of the listed offenses, with intent that the offense be committed. The crime is complete at the moment of the request; nothing has to happen afterward.
Is criminal solicitation of a minor a felony in Texas?
Almost always. The offense takes the category one below the offense solicited under § 15.031(e). Because the listed offenses are predominantly first- and second-degree felonies, most § 15.031 charges land as second- or third-degree felonies. Soliciting indecency by exposure grades down to a state jail felony, and a first-degree charge is possible when the offense solicited is capital.
Can I be charged if there was no real minor — just an undercover officer?
Yes, under subsection (b). The statute reaches solicitation of “another whom the person believes to be a minor,” which is precisely the sting scenario. In Sanchez v. State, 400 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), the Court of Criminal Appeals treated a detective using a 15-year-old persona as a real solicitation target — the belief element, not the target’s true age, controls.
What does the corroboration requirement in § 15.031(c) mean?
A person may not be convicted on the minor’s uncorroborated testimony unless the solicitation was made under circumstances strongly corroborative of both the solicitation and the actor’s intent. Courts apply the accomplice-witness framework: set the minor’s testimony aside and ask whether other evidence tends to connect the accused to the solicitation. Lankford v. State, 255 S.W.3d 275 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. ref’d).
Does a § 15.031 conviction require sex-offender registration?
It depends on the offense solicited. Article 62.001(5)(G), Code of Criminal Procedure, makes a Chapter 15 solicitation reportable when the solicited offense appears in the listed paragraphs — indecency with a child, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, continuous sexual abuse, compelling prostitution, sexual performance by a child, or child sex trafficking, among others. Solicitation of a non-sexual Article 42A.054(a) offense, such as murder, is not a sex-offender-registration offense.
How long does registration last after a solicitation conviction?
Generally ten years after discharge, not lifetime. Lifetime registration under Article 62.101(a) keys to “sexually violent offenses” and certain trafficking offenses; the Article 62.001(6) definition lists completed offenses and does not include § 15.031. A reportable solicitation conviction therefore typically falls under Article 62.101(c): the duty ends on the 10th anniversary of release, discharge, or dismissal, whichever is latest. Have counsel confirm the analysis against your specific judgment.
How is § 15.031 different from online solicitation of a minor (§ 33.021)?
Section 33.021 requires an internet, text, or electronic communication and carries fixed grades — third degree for sexually explicit communication (second degree if the minor is under 14) and second degree for soliciting a meeting. Section 15.031 covers solicitation by any means, derives its grade from the offense solicited, and adds a corroboration requirement. Prosecutors frequently file both after a sting.
Does renunciation work as a defense to solicitation?
Section 15.04 provides an affirmative defense where the actor countermanded the solicitation before the object offense was committed, took further affirmative action that prevented it, and did so voluntarily and completely — not because detection risk rose and not as a postponement. Its text names §§ 15.02 and 15.03, so its application to § 15.031 is a statutory-construction argument counsel must develop; § 15.04(d) separately makes proven renunciation punishment mitigation, dropping the grade one level.
Can a criminal solicitation of a minor charge be expunged or sealed?
A conviction cannot be expunged, and an offense requiring Chapter 62 registration is excluded from nondisclosure. The realistic record-relief paths run through the case outcome itself: an acquittal, a dismissal without felony community supervision, or a grand-jury no-bill can support expunction under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 55A. That is one reason charge-stage defense — corroboration challenges, grand-jury advocacy, suppression — matters so much.
I am under investigation but not charged. Should I talk to the detective?
Not without counsel. Solicitation cases are built on statements and message archives, and investigators often invite the target to a “clarifying” interview before any arrest. Anything said becomes corroboration. Invoke your right to remain silent, decline consent to search your devices, and let a lawyer manage all contact. Early representation can sometimes shape the charging decision before the grand jury ever sees the case.
Reggie London co-founded L and L Law Group with a focus on federal criminal defense, complex felony defense, and TEA/SBEC matters. Licensed in Texas, admitted to TXND and TXED.
Njeri London co-founded L and L Law Group with a focus on DWI defense, family violence cases, and juvenile defense. Licensed in Texas, admitted to TXND and TXED.
Charged with Criminal Solicitation of a Minor? Talk to L and L Law Group.
Co-founding partners Reggie London and Njeri London personally handle every case. Free consultation. Frisco, Texas.
L&L Law Group represents clients across North Texas counties for DWI, assault, drug crimes, juvenile defense, outstanding warrants, bond reduction, and expunction matters.
