Amendment to the United States Constitution. ¿fee U.S. Const, amend. XIV. As applicable in this case, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that, “No State shall ■make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of.the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person- of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law—” See■ id. Appellant’s contention is that section 33.021(d) eliminates the intent element of 33.021(c). As a result of this interaction, appellant argues that a person of ordinary intelligence is denied a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited. Appellant cites Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926), and State v. Holcombe, 187 S.W.3d 496, 499 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (<HOLDING>), in support of his contention. Section
holding that designating the health department to fix option price for purchasing nursing home did not defeat the contract under the definiteness doctrine holding the voidforvagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited recognizing doctrine holding the requirement that a person search through multiple statutes then through the administrative code lacks the sufficient definiteness that due process requires for penal statutes holding that in a fifth amendment challenge pjrovided that conduct is of a sort widely known among the lay public to be criminal  a person is not entitled to clear notice that the conduct violates a particular criminal statute it is enough that he knows that what he is about to do is probably or certainly criminal