Savery v. State
Decision Date | 09 October 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 095-90,095-90 |
Citation | 819 S.W.2d 837 |
Parties | Winsor Thomas SAVERY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Dexter M. Patterson, The Woodlands, for appellant.
D.C. Jim Dozier, County Atty., and Carole D. Clark, Asst. County Atty., Conroe, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted for the possession of child pornography. See V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 43.26(a). The Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction. Savery v. State, 782 S.W.2d 321 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1989). This Court granted appellant's petition for discretionary review to determine whether Section 43.26(a) violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We affirm.
The evidence used against appellant at his trial for the possession of child pornography was taken from his home. On appeal he argued that Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969), precluded the State from prosecuting him for possession of material in his house and asked that Section 43.26(a) be declared unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals refused to find the statute unconstitutional and affirmed the conviction. 782 S.W.2d at 323-324. Appellant's petition for discretionary review presented several grounds but this Court granted the petition only to consider his first, this being the constitutional question.
After we chose to review this case the Supreme Court decided Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 110 S.Ct. 1691, 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990). In that case, the Court specifically held that the states may constitutionally prohibit the private possession of child pornography. Distinguishing Stanley v. Georgia, the Court wrote that:
Osborne, 495 U.S. at ----, 110 S.Ct. at 1696, 109 L.Ed.2d at 109 (citations omitted).
Appellant only raises federal constitutional claims. 1 No independent state grounds are asserted. Consequently, pursuant to the holding...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Delapaz v. State
-
Ex parte Fusselman
...in Osborne , 495 U.S. at 106, 110 S.Ct. 1691 and dicta in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion in Savery v. State , 819 S.W.2d 837, 838 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), the Dehnert court held that section 43.26 was not unconstitutionally overbroad because it prohibits the lewd exhibition......
-
Ex parte Dehnert
...more body parts than genitalia.Dicta from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals supports our conclusion. See Savery v. State , 819 S.W.2d 837, 838 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In Savery , the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the defendant's conviction for violating section 43.26 was u......
-
Bolles v. State
...is the creator of the full image.6 Dicta from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals supports our conclusion. See Savery v. State, 819 S.W.2d 837, 838 n.1 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). In Savery, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the defendant's conviction for violating section 43.26 was un......