Texas Courts of Appeals
No. 04-17-00174-CR 12/06/17
Are the elements of former UCMJ Article 125 for sodomy of a child sufficiently similar to Penal Code §22.011 to act as a prior for enhanced punishment?
No. A defendant convicted of indecency with a child under Penal Code §21.11 who has a prior conviction for a sexual offense enumerated in Penal Code §12.42(c)(2)(B) receives a mandatory life sentence. A prior conviction under the laws of another state, or the UCMJ, may be used as an enhancement when the elements are “substantially similar” to the elements of an enumerated Texas offense. Article 125 encompasses a markedly different range of conduct, including prohibiting certain forms of consensual sexual activity between adults. The interests protected by UCMJ Article 125 are also different; Article 125 was designed to protect against a certain type of sexual activity, not to protect against sexual acts against children. Read opinion.
This decision represents an exhaustive application of the controlling authority from the Court of Criminal Appeals, and it appears to hold up because the UCMJ statute was directed only at specific types of sexual activity. Nevertheless, the Court of Criminal Appeals may still want to review this decision because it is unique.
Texas Attorney General Opinions
May handgun license holders carry handguns on the premises of a church that does not post signs excluding handguns? And are churches exempt from the private security fees charged to private institutions? Read request.
This request deals with a straightforward analysis of recently enacted statutory provisions and does not appear to be controversial. It is made in response to the recent tragic shooting at the church in Sutherland Springs.
Is the use or expenditure of civil asset forfeiture funds by a district attorney to purchase property insurance for a property awarded to the State as contraband while the appeal of the case is pending a use for official purposes of those funds pursuant to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 59.06(c)(l)? Read request.
This opinion request is reasonable but not nearly as straightforward. It will require a much more exhaustive statutory analysis of Chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and perhaps elsewhere. But it certainly does sound reasonable that a local authority should be able to insure real property that has been forfeited while that property is awaiting sale.