PD-1369-15 PD-1369-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 10/20/2015 2:25:33 PM Accepted 10/21/2015 3:02:23 PM No. ABEL ACOSTA CLERK IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

No. 0l -14-00942-CR In the FirstCourtof Appeals ofTexas

Albert Juni,orFebus,Appellant v. The State ,of Texas, Appellee

Appellant's Petitionfor DiscretionaryReview

JeraldK. Graber TSB # 08240320 917Franklin,Suite510 Houston,Texas77002 Tel.713-224-232 graberlaw@sbcglobal. net October 21, 2015 Attomeyfor Appellant StatementRegardingOral Argument

Appellantwaivesoral argum.ent.

Identitv of Judge.Parties.and Counsel Pursuantto TEX. R. APP.P. 38.1(a),the followingpersonsareinterested parties: Appellant Mr. Albert F'ebus TDCJ # 01982328 HollidayUnit 295lH 45 North ,TX 77320 F{untsville

l'rial Judge l'he HonorableStaceyBond 176'hDistrictCourt 1201Franklin f{ouston,Texas77002

Attorne),sfor State Mr. Kyle Watkins(in trial) Mr. Alan Cu.ry (on appeal) HarrisCountyDA's Office 6thFloor 1201Franklin,, Houston,Texas77002

Attorneyfor Appellant Mr. AndreLigon (in trial) Mr. JeraldK. Graber(on appeal) 917Franklin,Suite510 I{ouston,Texas77002 Table of Contents Page STATEMENTRE,GARDINGORI\L ARGLII\4ENT 2 IDENTITYOFJLIDGE, PARTIES., AND COLNSEL a J

TABLEOF CONTENTS 4 INDEXOF AUTHORITIES 5 STATEMENTOF THE CASE STATEMENTOF PROCEDURAI- HISTORY APPELLANT'SGROUNDFORRI,VIEW 8 REASONFORREVIEWINGGROLNDFORREVIEW 8 ARGUMENT 9 CONCLUSION andPRAYERFOlt RELIEF 14 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE l5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE t5 lndex of Authorities Cases Page Brook v. State, 2 3 S .W.3 d8 9 3 ,8 9 5 (Tex.Cr im. App. 2010) 10 Ervin v. State, 331S.W.3 d 49,55(Tex.App.-Houston[1stDist.] l0 2010,pet.refd) Green v. State, S.W.3d617 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.]

2010,pet. refd) ll Jaclcsonv. Virginia, L. Ed.2d 560(1979) 443U.S.307,99 S.Ct.2781,61 10 Kingv. State, 895S.W.2d701,703(Tex.Crim.App. 1995) l0 Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512,517(Tex.Crim.App. 2009) l0 Reyesv. State, S.W.3d603,605(Tex.App.-Houston [1stDist.]

2002,pet.refd) u Williamsv. State, (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) S.W.3d742,750 10 In re Winship, 9 7U . S .3 5 8 ,3 6 1 ,9 0 S .C t . 1 0 6 8 1 , 07r, s L . E d . 2 d 3 6 8( 1 9 7 0 ) 10 Statutes.Codesand Rules

Tex.CodeCrim.Proc.art.62.055(,2) T'ex.CodeCrim.Proc.art.62.102 Tex.Pen.Code$6.03(a) Tex.Pen.Code$6.03(b) T'ex.R. App.Proc.66.3(c) and(f) To the HonorableCourt of Criminal Appeals:

Statementof the Case

Appellantwas chargedby indictmentwith the felony offenseof failure to comply with sex offender registrationrequirements.(CR 6). Appellant entereda pleaof not guilty andthe casewastried beforea jury. (RR III 7). The jury foundappellantguilty. (CR 83; RR III 156).After a sentencing hearingto which appellantpled "true" to the two punishmentenhancement paragraphs, thejury sentenced appellantto 35 yearsin prison.(CR 90; RR IV 5,21).

Appellanttimely filed a writl.ennoticeof appeal.(CR 94). The trial right of appeal.(CR 96). courtcertifiedthe defendant's

Statementol' Procedural History On October15,2015,a panelof the FirstCourtof Appealsissuedan unpublishedopinion affirming the trial court's judgment in this case.

Appellantfiles this first petitionfor discretionaryreview with this Court.

Appellant's Ground for Review

The evidenceis insufficient to supportthe conviction for the felony offenseof failure to comply with sex offenderregistrationrequirementssince the evidence conclusively establishesa reasonabledoubt as to whether appellantintentionallyor knowingly failed to comply with the Texas Sex Offender RegistrationProgram,as,chargedin the indictment.The Court of Appealsrelianceon Robinsonv. Sitate,No. PD-0421-14,2015WL 4068109 (Tex. Crim. App. July I ,2015) is in error sincethe indictmentrequiredthe Stateto prove, beyonda reasonabledoubt, that appellantintentionally or movedateandnew address. knowingly failedto providehis anticipated

Reasonfor ReviewingAppellant's Ground for Review

The lowerCouft'sruling shouldbe reviewedpursuantto Tex. R.App. P. 66.3(c)and(f).

Argument

Pursuantto TexasCode of Criminal Procedurearticles62.055(a) and 62.102,the indictmentin this caseallegedthat appellant,on or aboutMarch convictionfor indecencywith a child 14,2013,as a personwith a repofl:able and subject to the Texas Sex Offender RegistrationProgram, and while intendingto changehis residentialaddress,intentionally and knowingly failed to timely provide in personthe defendant'santicipatedmove date and by failing to provide said new addressto the Houston Police Department,, infbrmation in personat least sevendays before the defendant'schangeof address.(CR 6); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 62.055(a)and 62.102. As chargedin this case,a personacts intentionally,or with intent,with respectto the natureof his conductor to a resultof his conductwhen it is his conscious objectiveor desireto engagein the conductor causethe result.(CR 78); Tex. Pen.Code $6.03(a).Also, a personactsknowingly,or with knowledge,with respectto the nature of his conduct or to circumstancessulrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the exist.A personactsknowingly,or with knowledge,with respect circumstances to a result of his conductwhen tre is aware that his conduct is reasonably ceftainto causethe result.(CR 78); Tex. Pen.Code$6.03(b).

The Jacksonv. Virginia legal-sufficiencystandardis the only standard that a reviewing court should appty in determiningwhetherthe evidenceis sulficient to support each element of a criminal offense that the State is doubt. Brooltsv. State,323 S.W.3d requiredto prove beyonda reasorLable Virginia,443U.S.307,99S. Ct. 893,895(Tex.Crim.App. 2010);.tacksonv.

2781,61L. Ed.2d 560,(1979). Llnderthisstandard, evidenceis insufficient all the recordevidencein the light most to supporta convictionif,,considerirng favorableto the verdict, no rational factfinder could have found that each essentialelement of the chargedoffense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jacksonv. State,443u.S. at319,99 S. Ct. at 2789;In re l|rinship,397 u . s . 3 5 8 , 3 6 1 , 9 0S . C t . 1 0 6 8 1, 0 7 1 , 2 5 L . 8 d . 2 d3 6 8( 1 9 7 0 )L; a s t e r vS. t a t e , S.W.3d512,517(Tex.Crim. App. 2009);Williamsv. State,235S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).Viewed in a light favorableto the verdict, the evidenceis insufficientwheneither:(1) the recordcontainsno evidence,or merelya "modicum"of evidence,probativeof an elementof the offense;or doubt.Lasterv. State, a reasonable (2) the evidenceconclusivelyestablishes 275 S.W.3d at 518. This standardapplies equally to both direct and evidence. circumstantial S.W.2d701,703 (Tex.Crim.App. King v. St,zte,895 1995);Ervin v. State,331 S.W.3d 49, 55 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]

2010,pet.refd).

l0 In this case, there is no dispute conceming whether appellantwas requiredto registeras a sex offender.The only issue is whether the State proved,beyonda reasonabledoubt,that appellantintentionallyor knowingly failedto registerhis intendedaddresschange,as chargedin the indictment.See Greenv. Stctte,350S.W.3d617 ('Iex. App.-Houston Ilst Dist.] 2010,pet. ref'd);Reyesv. State,96 S.W.3d603,605 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.]

2002,pet. refd) (statingthat a culltablementalstateis requiredfbr failure to registerviolations).The Court of ,{ppealsrelianceon Robinsonv. State,No. WL 4068109(-fex.Crim. App. July 1, 2015)in affirming PD-0421-14,2015 the convictionis in error sincethe indictmentin appellant'scaseallegedthat Febus"while intending to changehis residentialaddress,intentionally and move anticipated knowingly failedto timely providein personthe defendant's dateand new addressto the HoustonPolice Department."(CR 6). Therefore, this caseis distinguishablefrom Robinsonv. Statesincethe Statewas required to prove that Febushad a culpablemental statewhen failing to provide the comect addresssince it was an element charged in the indictment that specifically modifled appellant's failure to act. Id. Thus, the holding in Robinsonis not dispositiveof this qase.

The evidenceat trial shor,vedthat appellantwas convicted of the felony offense of indecencywith a child in 2001 and receiveda prison

l1 sentenceof eight years.(RR III 88-91; SX- 16). Becauseof that felony conviction,appellantwas requireclto abideby the rules of sexualoffender registrationupon his releasefrom prison. (RR III I I I ; SX- I 7). Appellant cornpliedwith the registrationrules during his pre-release and releasefrom prison in 2009 by listing his addresson GlenmontDrive in Houston,Texas. (RR III 111; SX-17,18).From 2009until 2013,appellant compliedwith the registrationprogram by registerirrgwith the Houston Police Deparlment (HPD). (RR III 3 l). On August 21, 2012, appellantcompliedwith the registrationprogramby updatinghis registrationand listing an addressof 6110 GlenmontDrive, apartment57. (RR III ll6; SW-32).The apartment manager fbr the La Hacienda r\partmentsexplained that this complex of two buildings,6100Glenmontand 61I 0 Glenmont.(RR lIl 62). corrsisted On March 6, 2013, appellantwent to HPD to comply with the registrationprogramsincehe intendedto move to a different apaftmentin the same apartmentcomplex, La Hacienda.(RR III 99-104). Appellant intendedto changehis registrationfrom 6110 Glenmont,apartment57 to show his intendednew aparlmentat La Hacienda Apartmentsof 6100 Glenmont,apartment45. (RR III 99-104).Appellant specificallytold the registrationofficer that he intendedto move to 6100 Glenmont,apaftment 45, but the March 6,2013 registrationform mistakenlylisted an addressof

6110 Glenmont,apartment45, not the 6100 Glenmont,apartment45 as by appellant.(RR III 20-25,52,99-l0a; SX- 1). intendedandrequested On October 27, 2013, Officer C.R. Black, with HPD's Sexual OffenderCompliancelJnit, checkedwhetherappellantwas complyingwith the registrationprogramand actuatlyliving at 6110Glenmont,apartment45. (RR fII 34-42).Officer Black indicatedthat his investigationshowedthat appellantwas not living at 6110Glenmont,apartment45 at that time. (RR rrr43). that appellantintendedto properly In this case,the evidenceestablished comply with all of the requirementsof the Texas Sex Offender Registration from prison in 2009,upon his releasefrom Programduring his pre-release notiflcation.Any prison in 2009, and into 2013 upon his change-of-address in appellant'slast listedaddressand/orapartmentnumberwere discrepancies merely a negligentmistakeon the:behalf of the registeringauthority and/or appellant. Since appellant maintaineda residencein the same apaftment complex,but a differentbuilding,after his changeof addressin 2013, it is that a mistakecoulclbe made.Therewas no intentby appellant understandable to evadehis dutiesto properly registeras a sex offenderin 2013.Therefore, the evidencedoes not establishbeyond a reasonabledoubt that appellant intentionallyor knowingly failed to timely provide in personthe defendant's

l3 anticipatedmove date and new addressto the Houston Police, by failing to provide said informationin personat leastsevendaysbeforethe defendant's changeof address.Thus, no rational factfinder could have found that each essentialelement of the chargedoffense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This caseis distinguishablefrom Robinson v. Statesincethe Statewas required to prove that Febus had a culpable mental state when failing to providethe comectaddresssincei1.was an elementchargedin the indictment that specificallymodified appellant'sfailure to act. Thus, the holding in Robinsonis not dispositiveof this oase.

Conclusionand PraYer

Appellantpraysthat this HonorableCourtgrantAppellant'sPetitionfor of the Courtof Appeals,andacquit Review,reversethe clecision Discretionary Appellant.

Submitted, Respectfully -4 '-'i i f w<Y) JeraldK. Graber 917Frarklin, Suite510 Houston,Texas 77002 713-224-2323 Attomey for Appellant

t4 Certificateof Compliance I, JeraldK. Graber,do certif' that this petition is in compliancewith Rule 9 sincethe entire documentconsistsof 2,065 words and is typed using l4-pointfont.

JeraldK. Graber

Certificateof Service I herebycertifo that a copy of this PDR was servedupon the following partiesvia e-file: Alan Curry HarrisCountyDistrictAttomey'sOffice 1201Franklin,6'nFloor Houston.TX 77002 StateProsecutingAttorney P.O.Box 12405 Austin,Texas78711 . 7

t@c, JeraldK. Graber

l5 OpinionissuedOctober15,2015

In The @ourtof 9ppeuld For The frirst Dtgtrictof0trexsd NO.01-14-00942-CR

ALBERT JUNIOR FEBUS,Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS,Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court Harris CountyoTexas Trial Court CaseNo. 1406874

MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convictedappellantAlbert JuniorFebusof the third-degree felonyof Pnoc. arts.62.055(a), failingto registeras a sex offender.SeeTsx. Copp Cntn,t.

andhe Febuspleadedtrueto two prior unrelatedfelonyconvictions, 62.102(a)-(b).

T'hejury assessed was thus subjectto an enhancedsentence. punishmentat 35 yearsin prison,andFebusappealed.

In his soleissue,he challenges the sufficiency of the evidenceto supportthe conviction.

We find sufficientevidenceto supportthe conviction,and we affirm.

Background Febus is requiredto registeras a sex offender due to a past conviction for indecencywith a child. He was required to sign and initial forms indicating his understandingof the registrationrules both on his releasefrom prison and on every occasionwhen he reregistered.Febus complied with the registrationprogram for six yearswithout any issues.

In March 2013, Febusmoved liom the apartmentwhere he was residing at 6110 GlenmontDrive, Apt.57, to anotherapartmentwithin the same complex, 6100 Glenmont Drive, Apt. 45. He was not listed on the leasesfor either aparlment,and the propefty managertestified that she did not know him and had not seen him on the apartmentgrounds. The tenant who was listed on the new apartment'sleasetestifiedthat Febuslived with him for eight monthsand shareda portion of the rent. BecauseFebus changedaddresses,he was requiredto update his addressfor the sex-offenderresistration.

Febusobtaineda new driver's licensefrom the Texas Departmentof Public Safety in orderto registerfor a new CR-14 identification,also known as a "blue card." He also filled out a CR-39 registration("Sex Offender Update Form"). All three of the registrationdocumentsin question (the temporary license,the blue card, and the Sex OffenderUpdate Form) listed his new addressas 6110 Glenmont Drive, Apt. 45, insteadof the correctaddress,6100 GlenmontDrive.

The registrationofficer who assistedFebus testified that reregistrationfor sex offenders involves a face-to-face meeting in which officers sit with the registrantsand assistthem with the process.The officer statedthat Febusprovided her with the incorrectaddresswhen she typed out the registrationforms. Febus,in contrast,testified that he gave the correct addresswhen registeringbut that there was some form of clerical error that led to the incorrectversion appearingon the documents.Febussignedall threedocumentswithout correctingthe address.

Sevenmonths later, a complianceofficer visited 6110 GlenmontDrive to attemptto locateFebusand ensurethat he was living where he was registered.The officer spoke with the property manager and the resident of the apartment identified on Febus's registration.Aller deterrniningthat Febus was not living at the address.the officer obtaineda warrant for his arrest.The officer did not visit 6100 GlenmontDrive.

Febus was chargedwith intenlionally and knowingly failing to provide his new addressto the local law enforcenrentauthority.The jury found Febusguilty of failure to register.At the punishmentstage,Febuspleadedtrue to past convictions for robbery and for being a felon in possessionof a firearm, leading to that set the minimunr punishrnentat 25 years. The State also enhancements evidencethat Febuspreviouslyhad beenconvictedof a state-jailfelony presented and that he had changedhis namerepeatedlyover the past 20 years.The jury at 35 years. punishment assessed Febusappealed.

Analysis In his sole issueon appeal,Febusarguesthat the evidencewas insufficient to supporthis conviction.

We determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal convictionby a legal sufhciencystandard.Brooks v. State,323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). When evaluatingthe legal sufficiencyof the evidence, we consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determinewhetherany rationaltrier of fact could have found the essentialelements doubt.Jacksonv. Virginia,443 U.S. 307, 319, of the offensebeyonda reasonable 9 S. C t .2 7 8 1 ,2 7 8 9 (1 9 7 9 );M er r itt v. State,368S.W .3d516,525 ( Tex. Cr i m .

App. 2012). The Statemay rely on circumstantialevidenceto establishguilt. See C a r r i z a l e sv. S ta te ,4 1 4 S .W.3d 737,742 ( ' Tex.Cr im. App. 2013) . The le gal standardis the samefor both direct and circumstantialevidencecases.1d "The jurors are the exclusive judges of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses,and the weight to be given to the testimony." Harris v. State, 364 S.W.3d328, 334 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012,no pet.).We may not ourjudgmentfor that of the factfinder.Williams reweighthe evidenceor substitute v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferencesfrom the evidencein favor of the verdict,and we def-erto that resolution.SeeJackson,443 U.S. at 326,99 S. Ct. at 2 1 9 3 :M e rri tt,3 6 8S .W.3d a t 5 2 6.

A personcommits the offenseof failure to comply with sex-offender "if the personis requiredto registerand fails to comply registrationrequirements with any requirementof' Chapter6'2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Tsx.

Conr,Cnrv. Pnoc.art.62.102(a); v. State,No. PD-0421-14,2015 Robinson WL 0 6 8 1 0 9a, t * 2 ( T e x .C r i m . A p p . J u l y 1 , 2 0 1 5 ) ;H a r u i s , 3 6 4S . W . 3 da t 3 3 4 .

to provideregistration Chapter62 requiressex offenderswho changeaddresses authoritieswith the "anticipatedmovedateand new address"no laterthan seven daysprior to moving,andto provide"proof of identityand proof of residence" to agencyno laterthansevendaysaftermoving,or the first day the new enforcement theagencyallowsthemto reportif later.Tpx.CooECRIM.Pnoc.art.62.055(a).

"lf the definition of an offensedoes not prescribea culpablemental state,a culpable mental state is neverthelessrequired unless the definition plainly dispenseswith any mentalelement."TEx. PENaI-CooE $ 6.02(b).Article 62.102(a) doesnot containa culpablemental state,,nor doesit plainly dispensewith one.As a result,"$ 6.02(c)requiresthat Article 62.102(a)be read to requireintent, to establish or recklessness knou,ledge, Robinson,2015 criminalresponsibility." WL 4068109at *2. A personactsknowingly,or with knowledge,with respectto surroundinehis conductwhen he is awarethat the circumstances circumstances exist. Tex. PENal Cooe $ 6.03(b).A personacts recklesslywith respectto surroundinghis conductwhen he is aware of but consciously circumstances exist. disregardsa substantialand unjustifiablerisk that the circumstances ft/. $ 6.03(c).

of a duty to Violationsof Article 62.102containtwo elements:awareness Robinson, register,and failureto complywith one of the statute'srequirements.

2015 WL 4068109at *2. This court has previouslystatedthat "[w]hen the indictmentallegesthata defendant'intentionallyor knowingly'failedto registeras a sex offender," we would require "sufficient evidenceof the defendant's or knowingfailure."Harris,364S.W.3dat 335.However,the Courtof intentional 2015 CriminalAppealshasrecentlyheld in Robinsonv. State,No. PD-0421-14, W L 4 0 6 8 1 0 9(T e x. C ri m. A p p .J uly 1,2015) .that "the culpablementalstate sof knowledge and recklessnessapply only to the duty-to-registerelement" of the failure-to-complyoffense. Robinson, 2015 WL 4068109 at *4. Thus, the requirementof a culpable mental state applies only to the circumstancesof the conduct-the duty to register, not the conduct of failing to do so. Id. The statute requiresonly that the offender"( 1) knew or was recklessaboutwhetherhe had a duty to registeras a sex offender,and (2) failedto report"his new address. Id. at *5

Febus arguesthat the Statepresentedinsufficient evidenceto prove that his mental statewas intentionalor knowing when failing to give the correct address.

He contendsthat he provided affirmative evidencethat conclusivelyestablisheda reasonabledoubt about his mental state.Based on the alleged lack of mens rea juror could find him guilty beyonda evidencefor his failure, he saysno reasonable reasonabledoubt.

This argumentis effectively renderedmoot by the holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Robinson. The evidencepermitted a jury to conclude that Febuswas fully aware of the registrationrequirements,basedon the forms he had to sign upon releaseand reregistration,six yearsof maintaininghis registration,as well as his own testimony.This constitutessufficient evidenceto show knowledge for the duty-to-registerelement.SeeitJ. at*6 (testimonythat offenderwas awareof the need to register was sufficient evidence to satisfy the first element of the offense).

Basedon Robinson'sinterpretationof Article 62)02, the Statedid not have to prove that Febushad a culpablemental statewhen failing to provide the correct address.The evidence shows that the required documents listed the incorrect addressand that Febussignedthem. That is sufficientevidenceto satisflzthe secondelement,failure to comply with the requirementsof the statute.The evidencethereforewas sufficientfor a rationalfactfinderto find Febusguilty of failureto complywith the registration requirement.

The holding in Robinsonis dispositiveof this case.Viewing the evidencein the light most favorableto the verdict, we concludethat a rational factfindercould have found Febusguilty of failing to comply with the requirementsof Article 62.

TEx. CooE CRIM.Pnoc. art. 62; see.lackson,443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789: Merritt,368 S.W.3d at 525.Accordingly,we overruleFebus'ssole issue.

Conclusion We affirmthejudgmentof thelrial court.

MichaelMassengale Justice and Lloyd.

Panelconsistsof JusticesKeyes,Massengale, D o n o t p u b l i sh .T n x. R . A p p .P . 47.2( b) .