Everette v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Everette v. State

465 S.W.2d 162, 1971 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1654

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 7, 1971

Docket43605

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 465 S.W.2d 162 (Everette v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Everette v. State, 465 S.W.2d 162, 1971 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1654 (Tex. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is sodomy; the punishment, two (2) years.

Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that the statute under which he was indicted and convicted, Art. 524, Vernon’s Ann. P.C. is “unconstitutional and void on its face in that it violates, through its overly broad provisions, the right of privacy and fundamental personal liberties protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” In support of his contention, appellant relies on the case of Buchanan v. Batchelor, 308 F.Supp. 729, in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, held that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad. We note that the United States Supreme Court vacated this declaratory judgment and injunction in *163 Wade v. Buchanan, 401 U.S. -, 91 S.Ct. 1221, 28 L.Ed.2d 526.

This Court considered appellant’s contention in Pruett v. State, 463 S.W.2d 191, and upheld the constitutionality of Art. 524, supra, after considering the Buchanan case.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is sodomy; the punishment, two (2) years.

Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that the statute under which he was indicted and convicted, Art. 524, Vernon’s Ann. P.C. is “unconstitutional and void on its face in that it violates, through its overly broad provisions, the right of privacy and fundamental personal liberties protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” In support of his contention, appellant relies on the case of Buchanan v. Batchelor, 308 F.Supp. 729, in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, held that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad. We note that the United States Supreme Court vacated this declaratory judgment and injunction in *163 Wade v. Buchanan, 401 U.S. -, 91 S.Ct. 1221, 28 L.Ed.2d 526.

This Court considered appellant’s contention in Pruett v. State, 463 S.W.2d 191, and upheld the constitutionality of Art. 524, supra, after considering the Buchanan case.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

465 S.W.2d 162, 1971 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everette-v-state-texcrimapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack