We have articulated how we review a facial challenge: To prevail on a facial challenge to a statute, a party must establish that the statute always operates unconstitutionally in all possible circumstances. Peraza, 467 S.W.3d at 514 (quoting City of Los Angeles v. A facial challenge is an attack on a statute itself as opposed to a particular application. If a statute is capable of two constructions, “one of which sustains its validity, the courts will give to it the interpretation that sustains its validity.” Granviel, 561 S.W.3d at 511. “We must seek to interpret a statute such that its constitutionality is supported and upheld.” Id. The burden is upon the party challenging a statute to establish its unconstitutionality. State When the constitutionality of a statute is attacked, the reviewing court commences with the presumption that the statute is valid and that the Legislature did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in enacting the statute. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.” Id. Section 46.035(f)(3) defines “premises” as “a building or a portion of a building. Section 46.03 provides, in pertinent part: “A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm … on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court.” Id. In her third issue, Thomas argues that the State failed to establish a violation of § 46.03 because the language of the statute does not apply to the entryway to the Guinn Justice Center and that the attempt by the sitting judges to change the definition of “premises” is void and invalid. Thomas asserts in her fifth issue that an edict by the sitting judges of Johnson County that applied § 46.03 to the Guinn Justice Center violated the separation of powers clause of the Texas Constitution. In her fourth issue, Thomas asserts that § 46.03 is unconstitutionally vague. We begin with Thomas’s final three issues that relate to the constitutionality and application of § 46.03 of the Penal Code. Section 46.03(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code, as applied, violates the separation of powers clause in the Texas Constitution. Section 46.03(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code is unconstitutionally void for vagueness. The State failed to establish a violation of § 46.03(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code as worded. To the extent additional issues are raised in the “Issues Presented” section, they are not properly briefed and are overruled. The issues listed in the “Issues Presented” section of Thomas’s brief do not coincide with the issues listed in the table of contents or in the headings included in the “Argument” section. Justice Neill recused himself from this matter on April 5, 2019. Judge Neill was appointed and sworn in as a Justice to the Tenth Court of Appeals on February 20, 2019. 1 Although initially assigned to Thomas’s criminal case, Judge Neill recused himself. The State failed to establish recklessness because the alleged underlying “order” was void and not properly proved. Testimony by the recused trial judge created prejudicial error. Issues Thomas presents the following issues:2 1. One of the security officers detained Thomas as she reached the bottom of the front steps. As the officer reached for Thomas’s purse, she ran through the metal detector and out the front doors. The officer escorting Thomas back to the security station told Thomas that he needed to search her purse. Thomas went through security screening and walked toward the elevators before being stopped by security officers, who asked her to return to the screening area. On October 21, 2015, Thomas entered the Guinn Justice Center carrying the firearm inside her purse. Thomas subsequently told her lawyer that she was in possession of another firearm. Thomas surrendered that weapon to her attorney, who filed an affidavit acknowledging the same with the trial court on August 31, 2015. Thomas informed the trial court that she owned and/or possessed only one firearm. After a status hearing, Judge Neill verbally ordered Thomas and her ex-husband to surrender their firearms to their respective attorneys. Thomas appeared before 18th Judicial District Court Judge John E. Background The underlying facts are not in dispute. Thomas challenges her conviction in five issues. F50926 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Bonnie Allen Thomas was convicted of carrying a weapon in a prohibited place and sentenced to five years’ probation. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 18th District Court Johnson County, Texas Trial Court No. 10-17-00138-CR BONNIE ALLEN THOMAS, Appellant v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |