[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.14.7″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” sticky_enabled=”0″]

Occasionally, they do get it right…

Curlee v. State (PD-20-0624-20)(Texas Court of Criminal Appeals)(April 14, 2021): a playground on the premises of a church which is surrounded by chain-link fence and padlock that was not completely locked (but nevertheless showed an intention to lock the playground) is not “open to the public” for purposes of the drug-free zone enhancement (See Drug Free Zone enhancement)

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]