Statutory Elements
Section summary§33.021 requires use of electronic means to communicate with a minor (or believed minor) for sexual purposes. The specific subsection determines whether the focus is on sexual communication or solicitation to meet.
The elements vary by subsection:
- The actor used electronic means (computer, internet, text, social media).
- The other party was a minor (under 17) or a person the actor believed to be a minor.
- The communication was for the purpose specified in the subsection (sexual communication for (b), or solicitation to meet for sexual contact for (c)).
Subsection Comparison
Section summary§33.021(b) requires sexually-explicit communication; §33.021(c) requires solicitation to meet for sexual purposes. The two are independently chargeable.
| Subsection | Conduct | Degree |
|---|---|---|
| §33.021(b) | Sexually-explicit communication with minor | 3rd-degree felony |
| §33.021(c) | Solicit minor (or believed minor) to meet for sexual contact | 2nd-degree felony |
Ex parte Lo
Section summaryEx parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), struck down a prior version of §33.021(b) on First Amendment overbreadth grounds. The legislature has since amended; current versions reflect that response.
The Lo framework:
- The Court held the prior version criminalized protected speech.
- Subsequent legislative amendments narrowed the statute.
- Current versions limit reach to communications with specific sexual content and clearer intent.
- Some First Amendment challenges to current versions continue.
Sting Operations
Section summaryMany online-solicitation cases arise from law-enforcement sting operations. An officer poses as a minor in an online chat; the suspect engages in sexual communication or arranges to meet. The fact that no actual minor exists is not a defense.
Sting case characteristics:
- Officer creates online profile representing a minor (typically 13-15).
- Suspect initiates or responds to communication.
- Officer/decoy escalates to sexual content over time.
- If the suspect arranges to meet, arrest occurs at the meeting location.
- The fact that no actual minor existed is not a defense — §33.021(d) covers belief.
Defenses
Section summaryDefenses include identity (someone else used the device or account), entrapment, lack of belief that the other party was a minor, lack of sexual purpose, and constitutional challenges.
Available defenses:
- Identity (account compromise, shared device, multiple users).
- Entrapment under Penal Code §8.06 — narrow but applicable in some sting cases.
- Lack of belief the other party was a minor (where age representation was contradictory).
- Lack of sexual purpose (innocent intent for communications).
- Constitutional challenges (First Amendment, due process).
- Statute-of-limitations defenses for older conduct.
Sentencing
Section summary§33.021(b) carries 2-10 years; §33.021(c) carries 2-20 years. Both require sex offender registration. Probation is available in some cases but with strict conditions.
Sentencing details:
- §33.021(b) — 3rd-degree felony, 2-10 years.
- §33.021(c) — 2nd-degree felony, 2-20 years.
- Probation available in some cases under CCP Article 42A, with strict conditions including no internet access in some forms.
- Sex offender registration under CCP Chapter 62.
- Federal exposure under 18 U.S.C. §2422 may also apply where conduct crossed state lines.
Need defense counsel?
L&L Law Group, PLLC handles Sex Crimes Defense cases throughout DFW. Initial consultations are free.
Call (972) 370-5060 →Registration and Collateral Consequences Screen
Online Solicitation of a Minor Defense cases frequently turn on the registration consequences of any disposition more than on the carceral sentence itself. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 62 imposes registration ranging from 10 years to lifetime depending on the offense. SORNA (the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 34 U.S.C. §§20911–20932) imposes parallel federal registration where applicable.
For a §33.021 charge, counsel must screen every potential plea structure for registration consequences before any disposition discussion with the prosecutor. Some registrable offenses trigger registration even on deferred adjudication; others do not. Some non-registrable offenses become registrable if certain aggravators apply. The specific statutory category controls; the apparent "lesser" plea may not avoid registration depending on the underlying conduct.
Residential restrictions, employment restrictions, internet-use restrictions, and public-database listing all attach to registration and have lifelong impact. The defendant must understand the full registration framework before accepting any plea. A plea that produces six months of jail and lifetime registration may be a worse outcome than a contested trial that produces a longer carceral sentence on a non-registrable offense.
Evidence and Expert Witnesses
Online Solicitation of a Minor Defense prosecutions rely heavily on testimony from forensic interviewers, SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) nurses, child-protective-services investigators, and lay witnesses who relayed disclosures. The defense's foundation work is rigorous review of the chain of evidence and of the methodology behind each witness's conclusions.
For a §33.021 charge, the defense should retain expert witnesses where the facts warrant: forensic psychologists who can speak to suggestibility and child memory, forensic-interview specialists who can critique the State's interview methodology, medical experts who can challenge the State's interpretation of physical findings, and DNA experts where the State's DNA evidence is central. Defense expert funding is available under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 26.05 for indigent cases and through CJA appointment in federal cases.
The defense should also focus on the Confrontation Clause framework after Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237 (2015). Statements children made to forensic interviewers at child-advocacy centers are often testimonial and inadmissible if the child does not testify. Statements to medical providers and to caregivers during emergencies may be admissible without confrontation. Each out-of-court statement must be classified, and motions in limine should target the testimonial statements before trial.
The online solicitation framework under Section 33.021
Texas Penal Code Section 33.021 criminalizes online solicitation of a minor and reaches communications with persons believed to be minors for purposes of sexual conduct. The statute has two primary subsections. Section 33.021(b) reaches communications by adult actors over the internet, by electronic mail, by text message, or through similar electronic means with persons under 17 to engage in sexual conduct or to engage in arousing communications. Section 33.021(c) reaches the actual solicitation to meet for sexual purposes.
The base offense under Section 33.021(b) is a third-degree felony, with enhancement to a second-degree felony when the person solicited is under 14. The base offense under Section 33.021(c) is a second-degree felony, with enhancement to a first-degree felony when the person solicited is under 14. The penalty structure reflects the legislative judgment that solicitation for sexual purposes is more serious than mere arousing communication and that solicitation of younger victims is more serious than solicitation of older minors.
The statute applies to actual minors but also to law enforcement officers and others posing as minors. The mens rea element requires that the actor believed the other person was a minor, regardless of whether the other person was actually a minor. This element creates the principal procedural framework for the online sting operations that produce most Section 33.021 prosecutions, where law enforcement officers create personas presenting as minors and engage in communications with adult targets.
The Lo and Ex parte challenges and the constitutional framework
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decisions in Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), and subsequent cases have shaped the constitutional framework for Section 33.021. The Lo decision struck down the original arousing communications subsection on First Amendment grounds, finding that the provision reached too much protected speech. The Texas Legislature subsequently amended the statute to address the constitutional concerns, producing the current framework that includes more specific elements designed to address protected speech concerns.
The current framework includes specific intent elements and other safeguards designed to ensure that prosecutions reach genuine solicitation rather than protected expressive activity. The defense should still preserve constitutional issues through pretrial motions, particularly in cases where the alleged conduct involves expressive elements that may receive First Amendment protection. The constitutional litigation has produced extensive doctrinal development that the defense should be familiar with.
The defense framework can also address the specific elements of the offense through challenges to the alleged communications, the alleged solicitation, and the alleged intent. The defense can show that the communications were not actually sexual in nature, that the alleged solicitation did not actually occur, or that the defendant did not actually believe the other person was a minor. Each defense theory requires specific factual development and should be evaluated against the prosecution evidence.
The sting operation framework and the entrapment defense
The sting operation framework that produces most Section 33.021 prosecutions involves law enforcement officers creating personas of minors and engaging in communications with targets. The operations typically begin with the officer posting on social media platforms or dating sites in ways that may attract adult interest. The communications then proceed through various platforms with the officer claiming to be a specific minor age.
The entrapment defense under Texas Penal Code Section 8.06 reaches conduct in which a law enforcement agent induces the defendant to commit an offense that the defendant was not otherwise predisposed to commit. The entrapment analysis includes both the objective conduct of the law enforcement agent and the subjective predisposition of the defendant. The defense can develop entrapment evidence through analysis of the specific officer conduct, the gradual escalation of the communications, and the absence of any predisposition evidence beyond the alleged offense conduct.
The legal definition of entrapment in Texas has both subjective and objective components. The subjective component asks whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense. The objective component asks whether the law enforcement conduct was so egregious that it would induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense. The defense should develop both prongs through factual analysis of the specific officer conduct and through expert testimony where appropriate.
The disposition options and the long-term consequences
The disposition options in Section 33.021 cases include various charge reductions, deferred adjudication where eligible, and standard plea outcomes. The defense should evaluate the comparative implications of each potential disposition across the multiple affected dimensions including sentencing, registration, and other collateral consequences.
Sex offender registration is mandatory for Section 33.021 convictions in most cases, with registration requirements extending for 10 years or for life depending on the specific offense level and any aggravating factors. The registration carries substantial collateral consequences including residency restrictions, employment effects, and ongoing notification requirements. The defense should consider how plea structures affect the registration requirements and should advocate for dispositions that minimize the registration impact where possible.
The federal sentencing exposure for related conduct can be substantial. The federal statute at 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b) reaches similar conduct and includes a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for offenses involving solicitation of persons under 18. The federal exposure typically affects cases involving interstate communications or particularly serious conduct. The defense should evaluate the federal exposure as part of the strategic analysis and should consider how state disposition may affect federal prosecution decisions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is entrapment a viable defense to online solicitation?
Does the federal government also prosecute online solicitation cases?
Can a §33.021 case be prosecuted if the "minor" was actually an adult officer?
Are sex offender registration requirements the same for §33.021?
Read the full Texas Sex Crimes Defense Guide
This article is one section of our comprehensive Texas Sex Crimes Defense Guide. The pillar guide covers recent developments, official resources, and the complete framework with deeper analysis.
Read the Pillar Guide →Next Steps
If you are facing a situation described here, consult counsel promptly. Many issues in this area run on strict deadlines.
- Call (972) 370-5060
- Email info@landllawgroup.com
Cite this guide
Bluebook: Reggie London & Njeri London, Online Solicitation of a Minor Defense, L&L Law Group (May 30, 2026), https://landllawgroup.com/insights/online-solicitation-minor-defense/.
APA: London, R., & London, N. (2026, May 30). Online Solicitation of a Minor Defense. L&L Law Group.