Court Opinion

ID: 9783831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:10:39.878142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:03.496124
License: Public Domain

JACK CARTER, Justice,
dissenting.
The Legislature has determined that the penalty for some drug-related offenses are enhanced if the offense occurs in a “drug-free zone.” Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.134 (Vernon 2010). To deter*768mine the location of a “drug-free zone,” it is necessary to examine the specific definitions of the terms as provided by the Legislature. One category involves offenses that occur near institutions of higher learning, public or private youth centers, playgrounds or public swimming pools, and video arcade facilities. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.134(b)(l)-(2). These violations increase the punishment range for state jail felony offenses, making them punishable as third degree felonies. Another category involves higher level felonies which occur within 1,000 feet of a school or public or private playground or on a school bus. The penalty for those offenses is enhanced by increasing the minimum punishment by five years and by doubling the maximum fine. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.134(c). The statute provides specific definitions of “Institution of higher learning,” “Playground,” “Video arcade facility,” and ‘Youth center.” See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.134(a)(2)-(3), (6)-(7).
The category that the State alleged applied to this case is found in Section 481.134(d). In those instances, state jail felony offenses are punishable as third degree felonies if the offense occurs: (1) in, on, or within 1,000 feet of any real property that is owned, rented, or leased to a school. “School” is defined in the same statute: (5) “School” means a “private or public elementary or secondary school or a day-care center, as defined by Section 42.002, Human Resources Code.” Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.134(a)(5). The indictment alleged the offense occurred “within 1000 feet of a school, to-wit: Little Ark Preschool, Paris, Lamar County, Texas.” The State made no attempt to prove that Little Ark Learning Center was a private or public elementary or secondary school and relied entirely on the alternative definition of “School” as including a day-care center.
Stated plainly, the State did not prove Little Ark Learning Center met all the requirements for a day-care center. A “ ‘Day-care center’ means a child-care fa-cility_” Tex. Hum. Res.Code Ann. § 42.002(7) (Vernon Supp. 2010). In turn, a “ ‘Child-care facility’ means a facility licensed, certified, or registered by the department....” Tex. Hum. Res.Code Ann. § 42.002(3). There was no proof that this facility was licensed, certified, or registered.
I will be the first to acknowledge that the requirements for this proof are detailed and particularized. See Jones v. State, 300 S.W.3d 93, 99 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (jury finding drug offense occurred within 1,000 feet of playground, as defined by law, did not constitute determination offense occurred within drug-free zone under statute applicable at relevant time). For whatever reason, the Legislature only intended to include day-care facilities licensed by the State agency charged with overseeing the centers. But these specific definitions and restrictions were mandated by the Legislature, and we cannot discard the necessity for that requisite proof. The majority opinion finds that most of the evidence needed was provided (Little Ark Learning Center served more than twelve children under age fourteen for less than twenty-four hours a day) and approves the failure to produce evidence that the facility was licensed with the observation that it is unlikely the church would operate without a license. It very well may be true that the day-care center is properly licensed, but we have no evidence of that and we cannot substitute our suppositions and speculation for evidence. Further, the majority opinion shifts the burden of proof by stating, “Absent testimony to the contrary, we will not assume that the First United Methodist Church was illegally operating *769the child care center....” The implication is that Haagensen must produce evidence that the center is not licensed; otherwise, the Court presumes it is.
I agree with the majority opinion that the State is required to prove the center was licensed, certified, or registered; since no such evidence is in the record, the State has failed to meet its burden of proof.
I respectfully dissent.