Code Construction Act, the legislature expressly stated its intent regarding its use of the word “including” in statutory provisions, providing: “ ‘Includes’ and ‘including’ are terms of enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expresse slature’s use of the word “including” as a means of illustration and not exclusion. For instance, in Leach v. State, the court of appeals applied § 311.005(13) to the defendant’s community supervision condition, which tracked statutory language in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and held that the word “including” did not “creat[e] a presumption against further inclusion of terms not expressly stated.” 170 S.W.3d 669, 673 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref d) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, in Wilburn v. State, the court of
holding enhancement applicable where the record supported conclusion that drugs were stored and cut in the same location as the guns even though a search of the location yielded no drugs holding that the courts will not read language into a statute where it would result in an enlargement of the statute by the court so that what was omitted  may be included within its scope holding that even though defendant began to display physical signs of withdrawal his waiver was voluntary because he remained coherent and responsive was aware of what was going on and told the  agents that he was able to continue with questioning holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees holding that because including was a term of enlargement the defendant had violated his community supervision by going within 1000 feet of a grassy area where children played even though this location was not specified in the list of prohibited premises