NO. 07-06 -011 8-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B FEB RU ARY28, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ T OBY DEAN PHILLIP S, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ER COU NT Y; TH NO . 51, 842- E; H ON ORABLE ABE LOPEZ , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellantTo by Dean Phillips app eals from his conviction by jury for failure to co mp ly w ith sex off end er regi stration requirem ent s and the r e s u lt in g sen ten ce of sev en years’ confine ment. In his so le poi nt of er ro r, appel lan t c hal len g es the l eg al su f f ici ency of the ev i de nc e to s up po rt hi s c on v i c ti on . W e affi r m. Appel lan t w as charg ed by an i ndi ctmentthatalle g ed he w as req uired to r eg is ter w it h Amar il lo law

enforc ement au thor it y

bec ause of his “r epor

tabl e c onv ic ti on” for a g g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d, an d tha t he int enti onal ly , k now ing ly or reck les sl y

fail ed to “ updateTe x . Code Cri m. Proc. Ann . art. 62 .10 2 (Verno n 20 06). 1 Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 62.055 (V er non 200 5)

. 2 See Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc . Ann. art. 62.051 (Ver non 2006) (d esc ri bin g reg is trati on 3 requireme nts). Th e de tective testif ied, h owev er, tha t app ellanta ppe ared in p erson at the police 4 sta ti on to r eg is ter

a ne w address on S eptember 13 a nd to ld another

off ic er then thathe 2 his ch ang e of address as req uired by ar ti cl e 62. 102 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re .” The i ndi ctmental so all eg ed tw o pr ior conv ic ti ons for sex off ender reg is trati on 1
v iol ati ons. At t ri al, appel lan t plead not g uil ty , and the Stat e pres ented ev ide nce that appel lan t faile d to compl y w it h the re q uirements set forth in arti cl e 62.055 of t he Cod e of Criminal Procedu re . The S tate’ s e v ide nce cons is ted o f t h e t e st im ony of tw o w it ness es, an 2 employ ee of an A mari ll o motel and an Amar il lo pol ic e det ect iv e, an d a w ri tten sta tement appel lan t g av e the dete cti v e. Appel lan t t ook the s tand in his ow n defense. Appel lan t’ s s uff ic ien cy

ch all eng e on appeal focuse s o n the “ ti me el ement” of the evidence. Specif ically , app ellantconte nds th e Sta te did not sho w b e yond a reason able do ub t th ata pp el l an t fai l ed t o ta k e an y a c ti on req ui r ed b y

a rti c l e 62 .0 55 w i th i n th e ti me per iod sp eci fied i n tha t s tatut e. W e di sag re e. Ev ide nce show ed th at ap pel lan t had reg is tered hi s a ddre ss a s that of the motel 3 loc ated on Amar il lo Boul ev ard. He cor re ctl y note s t h a t th e m otel empl oy ee te sti fied s he ask ed appe ll ant t o l eav e the motel after the firs t of

September

2005, but w as unsure of the exact date of

his dep arture. W e f ind, how ever, tha t the suf f iciency of

the St ate ’s ev iden ce 4had mov ed on September 9

. T oo, a ppel lan t’ s t est imony w as to t he effect he mov ed on that date. 3 does not d epend o n the est abl is hment of the date appel lan t mov ed from t he motel

. The det ective testif ied to a tel e p h o ne co nversation wi th ap pellan t on Se pte mb er 30, in which app ellanttold him he w as “mo v ing i n tod ay at 90 5 Sou th Mississippi.” Testim ony also est abl is hed t hat a ppel lan t di d notrepor t i n person to prov ide proof of res ide nce at t hat address unti l Oct ober

10, after the d etec ti v e c ame to the resi dence on O cto ber 6. Appel lan t t est i fi e d t o mo r e fre q u e n t c o n t a c t w i t h Amar il lo pol ic e department personnel than w as re flect ed i n the dete cti v e’s tes ti mony , and des cr ibe d hi s e fforts to ma intain comp liance wi th th e sex off end er regi stration requirem ent s. In c onduc ti ng a l eg al suffici ency rev iew , w e mustdete rmi ne w hether , after rev iew ing t h e e vid e n c e in t h e li gh tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e ve rd ic t , a n y r a t io n a l t ri e r o f fa c tco u ld h a ve found the ess enti al ele ments of t he cr ime bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Jacks on v . Vi rgini a, 443 U .S. 307, 318- 19, 9 9 S. Ct . 278 1, 61 L .E d .2 d 560 (1 979) ; McKi nney v. State, 207 S.W .3d 3 66, 3 74 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) ; Fowler v. Sta te, 65 S .W .3d 1 16, 1 18 (Tex .App. –Am a rill o 2 0 0 1 , no pet .)

. As fact finder , t he j ur y i s t he ex cl usi v e j udg e of the credi bil it y

of w it ness es and the w eig ht to be afforded to thei r tes ti mony . Cha m ber s v . St ate, 805 S.W .2d 459 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 1). T he jury is f ree to accep t one v ersion of the facts, re jec t ano ther , or

reje ct all or

any of a w it ness 's tes ti mony . Id. W e mu st uph old th e jury ’s
v erdict against a legal suff iciency challen ge unless it is ir ration al or unsu ppo rted by more than a mere modi cum of ev ide nce. Fow ler, 65 S .W .3d a t 118 ( citi ng Mo re no v

. St ate, 755 S.W .2d 8 66, 8 67 ( Tex .C ri m. App. 1988) ).Appel lan t doe s n ot ex pr ess ly ch all eng e the ev ide nce that hi s fail ur e to compl y w it h 5 the s tatut e’s req uirements w as acc ompani ed by a c ulp abl e mental st ate. W e not e, how ev er , t hat a ppel lan t’ s t est imony demons trated his k now led g e of the re por ti ng re q uirements , and the jur y co uld i nfer hi s know ing failu re to compl y w it h the req uirement of an i n- person re por

t from his ow n test im o n y and tha t of the detec ti v e. See Hoo per v. State, 214 S.W .3d 9, 15-1 6 (T e x. Crim .Ap p. 20 07) (discussing inferen ces f rom e v iden ce under l eg al suffici ency

tes t i n Jacks on ). 4 Ar ti cl e 62. 055( a) prov ide s, in re lev ant p art, that a pers on req uired to reg is ter under Cha pter 62 w ho c hang es address sh all , notl ater than the lat er

of the s ev enth day

after chan ging the ad dress or the f irst date th e ap plicable law enfor c e m e n t a u t h oritybypolicy all ow s t he person to repor t, re por t in per son to the l ocal l aw

enforc emen t aut hor it y i n the munic ip a lit y o r county

i n w hic h the person’ s n ew resi dence i s l ocat ed and pr ovi de th e au th or ity with pr

oo f of ide nt

ity an d pr

oo f of r eside nce . Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 62.055( a) ( Ver non 200 5) ( emphasi s a dded)

. The detec ti v e tes ti fied th e Amar il lo pol ic e depar tment all ow s reg is trants to make i np e rs o n re p o rt s e a c h w e e k d a y. T h e se ve n t h d a y a f t e r S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 , wa s Fr id a y, Oc to b e r 7

. As note d, ap pel lan t repor ted i n person and prov ide d the req uired proof of re si dence on O cto ber 10. Vi ew ed i n the l ig ht mos t fav or abl e to the v erdic t, w e c oncl ude t he ev ide nce w oul d per mit a rati onal triero f f a ct to find bey ond a re asona ble doubtthat app ellantfailed to comp ly w ith the requirem ent s of article 62.0 55(a ). The ev iden ce is 5 leg all y su ff ic ien t. Appel lan t’ s is sue is ov er ru led , and the tr ial court ’s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.