Texas repeated violation of family-violence bond conditions

Under Texas Penal Code § 25.072, committing two or more violations of a family-violence protective order or condition of bond within a 12-month period is a single third-degree felony — two to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. The statute aggregates repeated § 25.07 violations into one felony charge. Below: the controlling statute, how it differs from a single § 25.07 violation, the punishment range, the elements, real Texas case law, and defenses.

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.

The controlling statute

Section 25.072 is a “repeated-violation” or continuous-course-of-conduct offense. It does not punish a brand-new kind of act — it punishes doing the same prohibited thing again. The statute takes two or more violations of § 25.07 and folds them into one felony count.

The text of Penal Code § 25.072(a) provides that a person commits an offense if, during a period that is 12 months or less in duration, the person two or more times engages in conduct that constitutes an offense under § 25.07. Section 25.07 is the underlying statute that makes it a crime to violate a family-violence protective order or a condition of bond — for example, by contacting a protected person, communicating in a threatening or harassing manner, or going to or near a protected residence, workplace, school, or childcare facility. When two or more of those violations happen inside the same 12-month window, § 25.072 applies and the grade jumps to a felony.

The offense reaches orders and bond conditions entered in a range of case types — family violence, child abuse or neglect, sexual assault or abuse, indecent assault, stalking, and trafficking — but in North Texas the everyday version is the family-violence defendant who is out on bond, subject to a no-contact condition, and accused of reaching out to the complaining witness more than once.

§ 25.072 vs. a single § 25.07 violation

This page is about the repeated-violation felony. A single violation of a protective order or bond condition is a separate offense under § 25.07. The difference is the number of violations and the resulting grade — and it matters enormously to exposure.

A first, stand-alone § 25.07 violation is generally a Class A misdemeanor. Section 25.072 does not require any prior conviction: two qualifying acts inside a single 12-month period are enough, by themselves, to make the whole course of conduct a third-degree felony. That is how a defendant with no criminal history at all can face a felony for what looks, act by act, like two misdemeanors.

If you are researching a one-time accusation, start with our page on the single-violation offense, violation of a protective order or bond condition (§ 25.07). For how no-contact and other bond terms are set and enforced in the first place, see Texas bond conditions. This page does not repeat that ground — it focuses on what changes when the State alleges a pattern of two or more violations.

Classification & punishment range

Repeated violation under § 25.072 is a third-degree felony. The punishment range is fixed by Penal Code § 12.34: confinement of two to ten years and, optionally, a fine of up to $10,000. Community supervision (probation) may be available depending on the case and the defendant’s history, but a conviction is a felony record with lasting consequences.

Two practical points make a § 25.072 case heavier than the numbers suggest. First, the new charge almost always arrives while the original family-violence case is still pending, so an arrest can trigger a bond forfeiture or revocation on the first case at the same time. Second, because the offense turns on repeated contact, prosecutors often have a documentary trail — texts, call logs, social-media messages, or jail-call recordings — that they treat as ready-made proof.

Elements the State must prove

To convict under § 25.072, the State must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Breaking the statute into its parts shows where a defense can attack — particularly the “two or more times” requirement and the knowledge element carried in from § 25.07.

A person

The accused — the respondent or defendant subject to the protective order or bond condition.

During a period that is 12 months or less in duration

Every qualifying act the State stacks must fall inside one window of 12 months or less. Acts spread across a longer span, or an act that falls outside the charged window, cannot be combined to reach “two or more.”

Two or more times

At least two separate acts, each of which independently qualifies as a § 25.07 violation. Texas courts treat “two or more times” as an essential element of the offense.² Prove only one act, and the felony fails.

Engages in conduct that constitutes an offense under § 25.07

Each act must satisfy § 25.07 on its own: a knowing or intentional violation of the order or bond condition — by prohibited communication, threatening or harassing contact, or going to or near a protected place — committed with notice of the order.³

A qualifying case type

The order or bond condition must arise in one of the case types the statute names — family violence, child abuse or neglect, sexual assault or abuse, indecent assault, stalking, or trafficking.

How Texas courts have interpreted § 25.072

Section 25.072 is a relatively young statute, but Texas appellate courts have already mapped its core requirements — the two-or-more-times element, jury unanimity, the knowledge element borrowed from § 25.07, and the availability of the single-violation offense as a lesser-included charge. Four decisions frame how these cases are actually litigated.

Sufficiency: the State must prove at least two distinct violations

In Brooks v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed a § 25.072 conviction where the defendant, despite a no-contact bond condition, spoke to the protected person at a relative’s home, tried to reach her through Facebook, and then parked outside her home and yelled to her — at least two separate prohibited communications inside the window. The court recited the statute verbatim: a person commits the offense if, during a period that is twelve months or less in duration, the person two or more times engages in conduct that constitutes an offense under § 25.07.¹ The takeaway for the defense is that each stacked act has to be provable on its own; vague, undated, or single-contact allegations should not carry a felony.

Jury unanimity and the “two or more times” element

In Nnamdi v. State, the San Antonio Court of Appeals confirmed that “two or more times” is an element of the offense and that, under § 25.072(b), the jury must agree unanimously that the defendant, during a period of 12 months or less, two or more times engaged in conduct constituting an offense under § 25.07.² The court held that omitting the “two or more times” language from the application paragraph of the jury charge was error (though on that record it was not egregious harm). It also read “to or near” a protected place to mean within roughly 200 yards or close proximity — close enough to knock on a door. For the defense, charge language and the unanimity instruction are real battlegrounds.

The knowledge element carried in from § 25.07

Because every § 25.072 predicate is a § 25.07 violation, the Court of Criminal Appeals’ construction of § 25.07 controls. In Harvey v. State, the court held that § 25.07 requires a culpable mental state as to the order’s existence: the State must prove the defendant had notice of the order or of the hearing — a copy of the order, or notice that an application had been filed and a hearing would be held — although it need not prove the defendant knew every provision.³ If the State cannot show the accused had that notice at the time of a given act, that act does not count, and a felony built on stacking it collapses.

The single violation as a lesser-included offense

In Workman v. State, the Waco Court of Appeals held that a single § 25.07 violation can be a lesser-included offense of the § 25.072 repeated-violation charge under the cognate-pleading approach, where the indictment alleges conduct that necessarily constitutes the lesser offense; it also confirmed that § 25.072 is a third-degree felony.⁴ That matters at trial: if the evidence proves only one qualifying act rather than two, a defendant may be entitled to a conviction on the lesser § 25.07 offense — frequently a misdemeanor — instead of the felony.

1. Shaun Heath Brooks v. State, No. 07-23-00110-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 1, 2024) (mem. op.). ↩
2. Martin Nnamdi v. State, No. 04-23-00089-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 14, 2024) (mem. op.). ↩
3. Harvey v. State, 78 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). ↩
4. Robert Allen Workman, Jr. v. State, No. 10-15-00379-CR (Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 1, 2017) (mem. op.). ↩

Common defenses

The right defense turns on the exact orders, the dates, and the proof of contact. The repeated-violation structure of § 25.072 creates attack points a single-count case does not have — above all, the requirement that the State prove two separate, qualifying, knowing acts inside one window. General strategy is covered in our criminal defense strategies hub; the theories below are the ones that recur in § 25.072 cases.

• Only one qualifying act. If the State can prove just one violation — because the others are unproven, outside the 12-month window, or not actually prohibited by the order — the felony should fall to a single § 25.07 offense, as Workman recognizes.⁴
• No notice of the order. Under Harvey, the State must prove the defendant had notice of the order or the hearing for each act. A defendant who was never served, or who acted before the order took effect, is missing an element.³
• The contact was not prohibited. Bond conditions and protective orders vary. Some bar all contact; others bar only threatening, harassing, or in-person contact. Contact that the specific order allowed — or contact the protected person initiated — may not qualify.
• Identity and authorship. Texts, social-media messages, and calls from a shared or spoofed account are not always what they appear. The State must tie each communication to the defendant.
• Charge and unanimity error. As Nnamdi shows, the “two or more times” element and the § 25.072(b) unanimity instruction must be correctly charged; defects can support a jury-charge challenge.²
• Suppression. If phone extractions or account records were obtained without a valid warrant or consent, a motion to suppress may remove the State’s proof of the underlying contacts.

Because a bond-condition violation can also revoke the bond on your original case, defense work here is often two-front. Related process guides: how bond conditions work, affidavits of non-prosecution, and defense of the underlying family-violence charge.

Collateral consequences

A third-degree felony conviction reaches well beyond the sentence. Beyond prison exposure and the fine, a § 25.072 conviction is a felony record that can affect firearm rights, professional and occupational licenses, immigration status, housing, and employment. Because the offense involves family violence, the collateral impact is often broader than a comparable non-violence felony.

A family-violence finding can carry a lifetime federal firearms disability and limits under Texas law, complicate custody and family-court matters, and make future bond harder to obtain. A conviction also cannot generally be expunged. For accused defendants who hold a professional license — including educators subject to TEA/SBEC review — a felony can trigger separate administrative consequences on top of the criminal case. These stakes are why early, careful defense of a § 25.072 allegation is worth the effort.

After an arrest in North Texas

If you have been arrested for repeatedly violating a family-violence order or bond condition in Collin, Dallas, Denton, or Tarrant County, the first hours matter. A new arrest can put your existing bond at risk and add a felony on top of your original case, so what you do next has consequences on two files at once.

Stop every form of contact the order touches — including indirect contact through friends, family, or social media — and do not try to explain yourself to the protected person or to police. Preserve your phone and message records; they often cut both ways. Then talk to a defense lawyer before the next court setting. L and L Law Group defends these cases across the DFW metroplex; call (972) 370-5060 for a free, confidential review.

Key legal terms

Condition of bond

A rule a court imposes as a term of pretrial release — commonly, in a family-violence case, a no-contact or stay-away condition. Violating it can support both a § 25.07 charge and, if repeated, a § 25.072 charge.

Protective order

A civil order issued to prevent family violence or stalking that can prohibit contact and proximity. Violations feed the same § 25.07 / § 25.072 framework as bond conditions.

Repeated (continuous) violation

Two or more qualifying acts within a 12-month window, aggregated into one offense under § 25.072. Jurors need not agree on which specific acts occurred, only that the two-or-more-times pattern did.

Lesser-included offense

A smaller offense contained within a greater one. Under Workman, a single § 25.07 violation can be a lesser-included offense of § 25.072 when the indictment is pled that way.