Hollis Horton

Hollis Horton (Republican Party) was a judge for Place 4 of the Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals. He assumed office in 2004. He left office on December 31, 2024.

Horton (Republican Party) ran for re-election for the Place 4 judge of the Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals. He won in the general election on November 6, 2018.

Governor Rick Perry (R) appointed him to this position in 2004, and he was elected to a full term on November 7, 2006.^[1]

Biography

Education

Horton received his B.A. from Duke University in 1978 and his J.D. degree from the University of Texas School of Law in 1980.^[2]

Career

After law school, Horton joined Orgain, Bell & Tucker. He practiced law with this firm for 23 years and was certified in civil trial law and personal injury trial law. He joined the court of appeals in 2004.^[2]

Elections

2024

See also: Texas intermediate appellate court elections, 2024

Hollis Horton did not file to run for re-election.

2018

See also: Texas intermediate appellate court elections, 2018

General election

General election for Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals Place 4

Incumbent Hollis Horton won election in the general election for Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals Place 4 on November 6, 2018.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔	Submit photo	Hollis Horton (R)	100.0	287,666

	Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 287,666
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Republican primary election

Republican primary for Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals Place 4

Incumbent Hollis Horton advanced from the Republican primary for Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals Place 4 on March 6, 2018.

		Candidate
✔	Submit photo	Hollis Horton

	Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified.
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

2012

Horton ran unopposed in the general election on November 6, 2012, and was re-elected with 100 percent of the vote.^[3] ^[4]

See also: Texas judicial elections, 2012

Noteworthy cases

Indictment revived by Texas appellate court (2015)

A Texas man responded to a personal ad on Craigslist and was arrested for online solicitation of a minor. Michael Burl Massingill was arrested as part of the Internet Crimes Against Children on-going in Montgomery County. The ad indicated that a woman was seeking a partner for casual sex. When Massingill responded, the ICAC officers, posing as the female, informed him that she was just 15-years-old. Massingill continued the exchange despite the woman's alleged minor status, sending a graphic message in return. At that point, ICAC officers arrested him and charged him with online solicitation of a minor.

Massingill's attorney filed a motion to quash the indictment against his client, arguing that the indictment against his client was vague as it did not define the term "minor" as used in the charge. The prosecution, on the other hand, said that the definition of terms is an evidentiary issue left to the jury to determine. Judge Kelly W. Case agreed with the defense argument and quashed the indictment. The state appealed to the Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals.

The Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed Judge Case's ruling. Judge Hollis Horton wrote the court's opinion. He said that the term minor need not be defined in the indictment as it is already defined in the statute under which Massingill is charged. Further, because definitions are considered evidentiary in nature and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has already held that indictments do not need to assert evidentiary facts on their face, the definition is unnecessary.

Articles: