By Deandra Grant & Griffin Grant

Welcome to The Defense File, where we examine the criminal cases of public figures through the lens of Texas criminal law. A word of emphasis before we begin: this entry concerns a pending and unproven case. Thomas Partey has pleaded not guilty, denies every charge, and is presumed innocent. No court has found any fact against him. What follows is an examination of how charges of this kind would be framed under Texas law and not a comment on the truth of the allegations or the credibility of anyone involved.

The Allegations

Thomas Partey is a Ghanaian international midfielder who joined Arsenal from Atlético Madrid in 2020 and, after his Arsenal contract expired in mid-2025, signed with the Spanish club Villarreal. The legal matter traces to a February 2022 report to London’s Metropolitan Police. Partey was first arrested in July 2022; under UK law his identity was not made public at that stage, and he continued to play while the investigation proceeded. On July 4, 2025 (four days after his Arsenal contract ended) the Crown Prosecution Service charged him with five counts of rape (two involving one woman, three involving a second) and one count of sexual assault involving a third woman, relating to alleged events between 2021 and 2022. Through his solicitor, Partey stated that he denies all the charges and welcomes the opportunity to clear his name. The CPS, for its part, stressed that the proceedings are active and that he is entitled to a fair trial.

Where the Case Stands

On September 17, 2025, Partey appeared at Southwark Crown Court and pleaded not guilty to all six original counts. The court set his trial for November 2, 2026, and he remains on conditional bail (barred from contacting the three complainants and required to notify police of any international travel) which has allowed him to keep playing. In March 2026, the CPS brought two additional counts of rape involving a fourth woman, relating to alleged events in December 2020 that came to light after the first charges were publicized; Partey has indicated he will deny those as well. As matters stand, he faces seven counts of rape and one count of sexual assault across four complainants, all denied, with the central trial still ahead.

The Texas Analysis

If allegations of this kind were brought in Texas, the charges would carry different names and a heavier sentencing structure. Texas has no offense called “rape”; the conduct alleged would be prosecuted as sexual assault. And because the matter involves multiple complainants, Texas law would put something on the table that often surprises people: the possibility of consecutive, stacked sentences. None of what follows assumes any allegation is true. It is how the Texas framework treats charges of this character.

What Texas Calls “Rape”: Sexual Assault under §22.011

Texas does not have a crime called “rape.” What other systems call rape, Texas prosecutes as sexual assault under §22.011 which is non-consensual penetration of another person. It is a second-degree felony, punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison and a fine up to $10,000, per count. The seven rape counts alleged in the UK would, in Texas, be seven counts of sexual assault. Texas reserves aggravated sexual assault (§22.021) (a first-degree felony carrying 5 to 99 years or life) for cases with specified aggravating factors such as serious bodily injury, a threat of death or kidnapping, use of a deadly weapon, or a substance used to incapacitate a complainant. Whether any count would be charged as aggravated would turn on facts not in the public record, so the baseline here is the second-degree offense.

The separate “sexual assault” count (which in English law means non-penetrative sexual touching without consent) maps to a different Texas statute. The closest fit is indecent assault (§22.012), a 2019 addition covering non-consensual sexual contact. It is only a Class A misdemeanor (up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine), but it carries something most misdemeanors do not: sex-offender registration. The label is lighter; the lifelong consequence is not.

The Real Multiplier: Multiple Complainants and §3.03(b)

Here is where Texas diverges most sharply from many other systems. When a defendant is convicted of several offenses in one trial, the default under §3.03(a) is that the sentences run concurrently which means served at the same time. But §3.03(b) carves out an exception for a list of offenses that includes sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault: for those, a judge has discretion to order the sentences served consecutively which means stacked, one after another. With seven sexual-assault counts across four complainants, the theoretical exposure in Texas is not a single 20-year ceiling but a series of them, capable of being stacked into a sentence measured in cumulative decades. That sentencing structure is the single most consequential difference between how a case like this would resolve in Texas and how it resolves elsewhere.

A related fight would come well before sentencing: whether the complainants’ allegations are tried together or separately. The defense would ordinarily move to sever the counts, so a jury weighing one complainant’s account does not simultaneously hear three others. The State would resist, seeking to try them together or to introduce other-complainant evidence under Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b), not to show propensity, but for purposes such as intent, common plan, or absence of consent. (Texas does have a powerful special rule, Article 38.37, that permits broader propensity-style evidence in sex-crime cases, but it is largely confined to offenses against children and would not straightforwardly reach adult complainants.) The severance question is one of the most important strategic battlegrounds in any multiple-complainant prosecution, because trying the counts together changes what a jury hears, and stacking changes what a conviction costs.

Registration and the Permanent Consequences

A conviction for sexual assault under §22.011 requires registration as a sex offender under Chapter 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which for most such offenses is for life). Indecent assault under §22.012 is registerable as well. Registration is not part of the prison sentence; it is a separate, enduring consequence that governs where a person may live and work and follows them across state lines. In any Texas sexual-offense case, the registration consequence is often as significant to the client as the sentence itself, and it shapes every charging-and-plea decision.

Contested adult sexual-assault cases overwhelmingly turn on a single question: consent. Section 22.011(b) sets out the circumstances in which an act is “without consent”. Among them are the use of physical force, violence, or coercion, or that the complainant was unconscious, asleep, or otherwise physically unable to resist or to consent. Where the parties agree that contact occurred but dispute whether it was consensual, the physical evidence frequently cannot answer the ultimate question on its own. DNA can establish that contact happened; it cannot establish consent. A sexual-assault examination may document injuries, or their absence, without resolving the dispute. Toxicology may bear on whether a complainant had the capacity to consent. Communications between the parties before and after the alleged events often become central. This is the evidentiary terrain (forensic, toxicological, and digital) on which a case of this kind is actually fought, and the terrain a defense team must master from the first day.

How the Process Would Differ in Texas

A case like this would also move differently through a Texas courthouse. A felony sexual-assault charge cannot proceed to trial on a prosecutor’s decision alone; it requires indictment by a grand jury, which gives the defense a pre-indictment window to present exculpatory information before charges are formalized. The lengthy investigate-then-charge timeline that unfolded in London (a hallmark of the CPS’s evidence-review process) would in Texas run through that grand-jury gateway instead.

The publicity rules differ too. In England, the accused’s identity was shielded until he was charged, and the complainants are entitled to lifelong anonymity. Texas offers no equivalent pre-charge anonymity to the accused: an arrest is a public record from the moment it happens. Texas does protect the identity of sexual-assault complainants, who may proceed under a pseudonym, but the asymmetry runs the opposite way from England’s.

How Would the Defense Approach This in Texas?

  • Hold the line on the presumption of innocence. These are unproven allegations. The State would carry the burden of proving every element of every count beyond a reasonable doubt, and a not-guilty posture and full denial are the starting point, not a strategy of last resort.
  • Fight to sever the counts. Because trying four complainants together is far more prejudicial than trying them one at a time, the severance motion is among the first and most important pieces of work in a multiple-complainant case.
  • Make consent the issue and meet it with evidence. Where contact is not disputed but consent is, the defense develops the forensic record (ex. what DNA does and does not prove, the findings or absence of findings from any examination, toxicology bearing on capacity, and the parties’ own communications).
  • Scrutinize the timeline and the process. A multi-year investigation, and complainants coming forward after publicity, are facts a defense team examines closely by looking at how each account developed and when. In Texas, the grand-jury window is the place to test the State’s case before it hardens into an indictment.
  • Build the punishment phase from day one. Because §3.03(b) makes stacking possible, mitigation and punishment-phase preparation are not afterthoughts; they are built in from the outset as insurance against the cumulative-sentence risk.
  • Account for the collateral consequences. Sex-offender registration is permanent, and a non-citizen defendant in Texas would face near-certain immigration consequences on top of any sentence. That exposure has to be factored into every decision in the case.

What This Case Illustrates

The Partey case is, first and most importantly, an unproven one. He has denied every count and pleaded not guilty, no court has found any fact against him, and his trial is still ahead. What the case usefully illustrates is how differently a set of allegations like these would be framed under Texas law. The word “rape” would disappear, replaced by “sexual assault.” The lone non-penetrative count would become a misdemeanor that nonetheless triggers lifelong registration. And the feature that draws the least attention in the headlines (that the charges involve more than one complainant) would become, under §3.03(b), the feature that most defines the sentencing exposure. In Texas, multiplicity is not just arithmetic; it is the mechanism by which concurrent time can become consecutive time. That is the fact around which a case like this is built for the defense and the prosecution alike.

Sources

  • ESPN / Sky Sports — Partey not-guilty pleas and Nov. 2026 trial date: com
  • The Independent / PA Media — CPS charging statement, July 2025: co.uk
  • Al Jazeera / The Telegraph — additional rape charges involving a fourth complainant, March 2026: com
  • Texas Penal Code §22.011 (Sexual Assault) and §22.012 (Indecent Assault): capitol.texas.gov
  • Texas Penal Code §3.03 (Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences): capitol.texas.gov
  • Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 62 (Sex Offender Registration)

The Defense File is an educational series. Thomas Partey has pleaded not guilty and denies all charges; the case is pending and no allegation has been proven. All Texas analysis is hypothetical and does not constitute legal advice or any statement of fact about Mr. Partey or any complainant.

 

If you or a family member is facing sexual assault or other felony charges in Texas, call (214) 225-7117 for a free, confidential consultation. Or schedule online at texasdwisite.com.