Tex. Codes » Penal Code · TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS · CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS
Texas Codes

Tex. Penal Code § 46.11 (2026)

Penalty If Offense Committed Within Weapon-free School Zone

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 46.11. PENALTY IF OFFENSE COMMITTED WITHIN WEAPON-FREE SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), the punishment prescribed for an offense under this chapter is increased to the punishment prescribed for the next highest category of offense if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt on the trial of the offense that the actor committed the offense in a place that the actor knew was:

(1) within 300 feet of the premises of a school; or

(2) on premises where:

(A) an official school function is taking place; or

(B) an event sponsored or sanctioned by the University Interscholastic League is taking place.

(b) This section does not apply to an offense under Section 46.03(a)(1).

(c) In this section:

(1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 481.134, Health and Safety Code.

(2) "School" means a private or public elementary or secondary school.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 320, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1063, Sec. 10, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Amended by:

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 91 (S.B. 1303), Sec. 20.002, eff. September 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1990–2020 · leading case: Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “3 (instructing this Court to consider—in deciding whether to grant discretionary review—among others, whether: (b) there is an important question of constitutional law that should be settled by the Court of Criminal Appeals and (e) the justices of the court of appeals disagreed…”
Thomas v. State, 801 S.W.2d 540 (Tex. App. 1991). · cites it 10× “In drafting Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 46.11 the Legislature failed to think before it enacted.”
Linnell v. State, 935 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). “A jury convicted appellant of possession of a deadly weapon in a penal institution, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.11 (now § 46.10), and assessed punishment at ten years confinement and $1,845.”
Resanovich v. State, 906 S.W.2d 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). “Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.11 . The indictment alleged two prior convictions for purposes of enhancement, and the jury found both true.”
Stanul v. State, 870 S.W.2d 329 (Tex. App. 1994). “Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 46.01 (West 1989 & Supp.”
Lisai v. State, 875 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. App. 1994). “Lisai was charged under TexPenal Code Ann. § 46.11 (Vernon 1989) for the offense of possession or concealment of a deadly weapon in a penal institution.”
January v. State, 811 S.W.2d 631 (Tex. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “81(b)(2) provides that: “If the appellate record in a criminal case reveals error in the proceedings below, the appellate court shall reverse the judgment under review, unless the appellate court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the error made no contribution to the…”
Thomas v. State, 825 S.W.2d 758 (Tex. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Appellant turned the object over to the guard and the guard observed that the object was a homemade stabbing device known as a “shank.”
Berry v. State, 833 S.W.2d 332 (Tex. App. 1992). “Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 46.11. The jury, as a rational trier of fact, was entitled to believe that Berry’s only possible reason for possession of the shank was his intention to use it to cause death or serious bodily injury.”
Rivera v. State, 948 S.W.2d 365 (Tex. App. 1997). “Thus, we conclude that the defense of necessity is not available for violations of Tex. Penal Code § 46.11(a). Id, at 634. While we certainly agree with the general proposition of the Tyler Court regarding the significant State interest in maintaining a weapon-free environment…”
Rios v. State, 1 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. App. 1999). “ref'd) this court concluded that the defense of necessity was not available for violations of Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 46.11(a) (now § 46.10) which prohibits inmates from possessing a deadly weapon in a penal institution.”
Elmi Mursal Elmi v. State (Tex. App. 2020). “2 1 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.11 . Tex. R. Evid.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
Tex. Penal Code § 46.11(a): 5 cases
Thomas v. State, 801 S.W.2d 540 (Tex. App. 1991). “In drafting Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 46.11 the Legislature failed to think before it enacted.”
January v. State, 811 S.W.2d 631 (Tex. App. 1991). “81(b)(2) provides that: “If the appellate record in a criminal case reveals error in the proceedings below, the appellate court shall reverse the judgment under review, unless the appellate court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the error made no contribution to the…”
Thomas v. State, 825 S.W.2d 758 (Tex. App. 1992). “Appellant turned the object over to the guard and the guard observed that the object was a homemade stabbing device known as a “shank.”
Rivera v. State, 948 S.W.2d 365 (Tex. App. 1997). “Thus, we conclude that the defense of necessity is not available for violations of Tex. Penal Code § 46.11(a). Id, at 634. While we certainly agree with the general proposition of the Tyler Court regarding the significant State interest in maintaining a weapon-free environment…”
Rios v. State, 1 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. App. 1999). “ref'd) this court concluded that the defense of necessity was not available for violations of Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 46.11(a) (now § 46.10) which prohibits inmates from possessing a deadly weapon in a penal institution.”
Tex. Penal Code § 46.11(a)(1): 1 case
Noe Gomez v. State (Tex. App. 1990).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.