Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CLYDIE RAY HENSHAW, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Opinion By Justice Lang
Appellant, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to the continuous sexual abuse of a child. The trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years' confinement. On appeal, appellant challenges the trial court's denial of appellant's pre-trial motion to declare section 21.02 of the Texas Penal Code unconstitutional. We overrule appellant's sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion to declare section 21.02 of the penal code unconstitutional. In his motion, appellant alleged the continuous sexual abuse statute found in section 21.02 was unconstitutional because it: (1) violates his right to a unanimous jury verdict under the Texas Constitution; and (2) violates his rights to due process under both the United States and the Texas Constitutions. After the trial court denied appellant's motion, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to twenty-five years' confinement. This appeal followed.
In his sole issue, appellant contends section 21.02 of the penal code unconstitutionally allows a jury to convict a defendant without being unanimous as to the underlying predicate offenses which compose the umbrella offense of continuous sexual abuse. This Court has previously considered the constitutionality of the statute in question and concluded, contrary to appellant's argument, that section 21.02 of the penal code does not violate the unanimity requirement. Render v. State, 316 S.W.3d 846, 857 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 131 U.S. 1533 (2011). We have also considered the Supreme Court's analysis in Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999), cited by appellant in his brief, and concluded it did not support the argument appellant raises. See Render, 316 S.W.3d at 857–58. Appellant presents no new analysis or persuasive argument to convince us to change our conclusion in Render. We overrule appellant's sole issue.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
100104F.U05
DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 05–10–00104–CR
Decided: April 18, 2011
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)