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,
3 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,
350 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,
96 S.W.3d603,605(Tex.App.-Houston [1stDist.]
2002,pet.refd) u
Williamsv. State,
(Tex.Crim.App. 2007)
235 S.W.3d742,750 10
In re Winship,
3 9 7U . S .3 5 8 ,3 6 1 ,9 0 S .C t . 1 0 6 8 1
, 07r,
2 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 ,
275 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
12
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