Case Summaries

Each week, TDCAA staff members summarize the most important cases from Texas and federal criminal courts and provide insightful commentary on how those cases could impact the criminal justice system as well as a link to the opinions. Find a library of previous Weekly Case Summaries here.

Summaries

February 6, 2026

Texas Courts of Appeals

Roberts v. State

No. 04-24-00485-CR                   2/4/26

Issue:

Does Penal Code §20.05(a)(1)(A) (human smuggling) violate the First Amendment on its face because it “focuses on regulating thought”?

Holding:

No. The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that §20.05 applies to an “innocuous, common act—driving with a passenger” if done “with the wrong thought.” The Court noted that the statute covers both transport with intent to conceal that is demonstrated through actual concealment and where concealment itself is unlawful. “This sweep is ‘plainly legitimate.’ … In applications that include actual concealment, §20.05(a)(1)(A) punishes non-expressive conduct, which does not raise First Amendment concerns, even if the statute requires the fact-finder to determine intent.” 

The Court also rejected the defendant’s argument that §20.05 was pre-empted by federal immigration statutes, noting that with an as-applied conflict pre-emption challenge, the application of the state law must conflict with federal law’s comprehensive immigration scheme or with the federal government’s discretion over immigration-related prosecutions, which did not happen in this case. Read opinion.

Commentary:

For prosecutors pursuing a smuggling prosecution, this decision is extremely helpful. Both issues are thoroughly discussed, and the decision is very well-researched. It should be noted that the elements of this statute are much like the elements of many offenses found in Chapter 38 of the Penal Code. So prosecutors should feel comfortable in pursuing a prosecution under this statute if the facts support it. With this decision, there is now a consistent body of case law from Texas appellate courts that support smuggling prosecutions.

Texas Attorney General Opinions

KP-0512                                2/2/26

Issue:

Can a commissioners court rescind and readopt a different county budget after the county’s annual budget has been approved?

Conclusion:

Local Gov’t Code Chapter 111 does not authorize a commissioners court to wholly rescind and adopt a different budget after approving the annual budget. Under Local Gov’t Code §152.013(a), the commissioners court may not reduce the salary of an elected county officer once the budget hearing and adoption proceedings are complete and a budget is approved.

Local Gov’t Code §111.009(a) provides that the commissioners court (not the county auditor) must file the approved budget with the county clerk. Read opinion.

Requested by:

Eduardo Serna, Zavala County Attorney

KP-0513                                2/5/26

Issue:

Do bond conditions become enforceable when a defendant signs the order of conditions or only upon the defendant bonding out from custody?

Conclusion:

Pretrial bond conditions are effective when a defendant gives the bond ordered by the magistrate and may not be enforced before that time. “Our conclusion is not meant to suggest that a magistrate has no ability under Chapter 17 to prohibit a defendant from interacting with an alleged victim prior to the defendant giving the required bond. …” The AG noted that Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 17.292(a), which is effective on issuance, can prohibit an arrestee from directly communicating with a family or household member or a person protected under an emergency protective order.

The AG’s Office also concluded that bond conditions are not enforceable after revocation and rearrest of a defendant. “Rather, the court typically sets a new bond that may, or may not, include the same conditions.” Read opinion.

Requested by:

Layne Thompson, Angelina County District Attorney

KP-0510                                2/2/26

Issue:

Can a constable use an automated traffic-enforcement system for speeding citations?

Conclusion:

No. A constable lacks authority under the Texas Constitution or statutes (including Transportation Code §§542.2035 and 707.020, Transportation Code Chapter 543, and Code of Criminal Procedure Arts. 2A.051(1)–(2)), as well as Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. KP-0076 (2016) to use an automated traffic-enforcement system to issue speeding citations by mail. Read opinion.

Requested by:

Joe Gonzales, Bexar County Criminal District Attorney

TDCAA is pleased to offer these unique case summaries from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court, the Texas Courts of Appeals and the Texas Attorney General. In addition to the basic summaries, each case will have a link to the full text opinion and will offer exclusive prosecutor commentary explaining how the case may impact you as a prosecutor. The case summaries are for the benefit of prosecutors, their staff members, and members of the law enforcement community. These summaries are NOT a source of legal advice for citizens. The commentaries expressed in these case summaries are not official statements by TDCAA and do not represent the opinions of TDCAA, its staff, or any member of the association. Please email comments, problems, or questions to Joe Hooker.