1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________ NO. 09
- 11
- 00 429
- CR



### _________________ BENNIE RAY JOHNSON , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 11
- 05
- 05840
- CR

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION After accepting a plea

- bargain agreement , the trial court g ave Benn ie Ray Johnson permission to appeal, allowing him to challeng e the constitutionality of the sex offender registration statute. See Act of May 26, 1991, 72nd Leg., R .S., ch. 572, § 1, 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws 2029 , 2029

- 2030 (amended 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011) (current version at Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 62.001

- .408 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012))

. Johnson was convicted of failing to register as required by the sex offender registration statute based on his fail ure to report to the Sheriff’s Office of2 Montgomery County, Texas , within seven days of having arriv ed there. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.051(a) (West Supp. 2012)

. Johnson’s written stipulat ion , signed in connection with his plea agreement , reflects that Johnson admitted that he failed to report within seven days to the sheriff’s office as alleged by the indictment and that Johnson was required to register due to his 1998 conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child

. In one appellate issue, Johnson contends certain 1999 and 2005 amendments to the

sex - offender

- registration

- statute violate a rticle I , section 16 of the Texas Constitution.
See Tex. Const. a rt. I, § 16 (the ex post facto provision ) ; see also Grimes v. State , 807 S.W.2d 582, 5 83

- 84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (when interpreting the S tate constitution’s ex post facto provision , the Court of Criminal Appeals has followed the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federa l constitution’s ex post facto c lause)

. 1 Having considered Johnson’s arguments, w e are not persuaded that the registration
statute at issue was applied retroactively ; we overrule Johnson’s issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Ex Post Facto Pro hibition
A penal statute cannot be lawfully applied retroactively to obtain a convict ion based on c onduct that was not criminal when it occurred

. See Ieppert v. State , 908 S.W.2d 217, 219 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). “ An ex post facto law: 1) punishes as a crime

1 A defendant may raise a n ex post facto claim for the first time on appeal. Ieppert v. State , 908 S.W.2d 217, 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).3 an act pr eviously committed which was innocent when done; 2) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law attached to a c riminal offense when committed; or 3) deprives a person charged with a crime of any defense available at the time the a ct was committed. ” Rodriguez v. State , 93 S.W.3d 60 , 66 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Nevertheless, some statutes, such as civil statutes that create civil remedies and that do not inflict punishment under constitutional standards , may be applied retroactively

. See id

. at 67

- 68

. Whether a legislative change has a sufficient effect on punishment to violate the C onstitution “is a matter of degree [,] ” and “[a] statutory amendment that creates only the most speculative and attenuated possibility of producing the prohibited effect of increasing the measure of punishment does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.” Johnson v. State , 930 S.W.2d 589, 591 , 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) ( con cluding that statute passed after defendant committed a crime, which permit t ed an
out

- of

- state sentence to be used in cumulating the defendant ’s sentence , operate d retroactively as a criminal punishment , violat ing a rticle I, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution)

. Johnson argues that c hapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which impos es various requir ements on person s required to register as sex offender s , violate s the Texas Constitution’s E x P ost F acto C lause

. Johnson claims that the amendments to

c hapter 62 affect ed his “vested rights”

— rights that he argues vested in 1998 when he was convicted on a charge of aggravated sexual assault of a child

.4 S everal factors guide a court in deciding whether a statute operates retroactively in a prohibited manner

. One factor courts have considered is “ ‘ whether a statute assigns more disadvantageous criminal or penal consequences to an act than did the law in place when the act occurred, [and] it is irrelevant whether the statutory ch ange touche s any vested rights. ’ ” Grimes , 807 S.W.2d at 587 (quoting Weaver v. Graham , 450 U.S. 24, 29 n.13, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). Another court ha s considered whether the statute is procedural or substantive, as “[l]aws altering procedure do not generally fall within the prohibition.” Ibarra v. State , 11 S.W.3d 189, 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Other factors that may be considered in determining whether a statute has a prohibited retroactive affect include:

• “ whet her the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint; ”

• “ whether it has traditionally been regarded as a punishment; ”

• “ whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter; ”

• “ whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment

— retribution and deterrence ;”

• “ whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime; ”

• “ whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable to it; ” and

• “ whether it appears excessive in relation to the alter native purpose assigned.”5 Rodriguez , 93 S.W.3d at 68 (citing Kennedy v. Mendoza

- Martinez , 372 U.S. 144, 168

- 69, 83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963)).
Numerous c hanges have been made over the years to the sex offender registration
program that have not been considered to have made the statute punitive . For example , t he Court of Criminal Appeals , reject ing a claim that the 1999 amendments to the sex offender registration program violate prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishments,
stat ed: “ [T] he 1999 v ersion of the [sex offender registration program], like the 1997 version, is non

- punitive in both intent and effect. ” Ex parte Robinson , 116 S.W.3d 794, 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Another court noted that the 2005 changes to the sex offender registration program were adjustments to the registration statute to make it more easily understood by those required to register. See Reynolds v. S tate , No. 10

- 10

- 00306

- CR, 2012 WL 3629361, at * 6 (Tex. App.

— Waco Aug. 23, 2012, pet. filed). In Rodriguez , t he Court of Criminal Appeals considered an ex post facto challenge to the 1997 amendments to the sex

- offender

- registration statute

. Rodriguez , 93 S. W.3d at 6 8

- 79. In 1999, Rodriguez was indicted for failing to register as a sex offender. Id. at 66. His indictment was based on a 1987 conviction for aggravated sexual assault , made reportable by the 1997 amendments to c hapter 62. Id . at 65

- 66

. After analyzing the Kennedy factors, the Court of Criminal Appeals d eclin ed to hold the amendments to the registration statute unconstitutional , held that the challenged amendments were civil , and6 stated the amendments to the statute were remedial in nature and not “so punitive as to transform the statute into a criminal sanction

. ” Id . at 79. Although the amendments at issue here are not identical to those the Court of Criminal Appeals considered in Rodri g uez , the question we must answer is the same: whether the a mendment s at issue to the sex offender registration statute assign ed sufficient criminal or penal consequences to tr ansform the statute into a criminal sanction

. See id . at 79, Grimes , 807 S.W.2d at 587. Significantly , Johnson presents no argument that any of the Kennedy factors favor a finding that the amendments at issue violate the prohibition against making an ex post facto law

. See Kennedy , 372 U.S. at 168

- 69; Rodriguez , 93 S.W.3d at 68. Although Johnson has not ad dressed the Kennedy factors in his brief, he advances several claims regarding the retroactive effect of the amendments at issue. According to Johnson , article 62.02, § 5(g) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is unconstitutional because it effects a criminal punishment , and it is designed to operate retroactively

. See Act of May 26, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1193 , § 5, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4178, 4179

- 80 (amended 2001, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2011) (current version at Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. ar t. 62.051). As added in 1999, subsection 5(g) required person s having a reportable conviction, if employed or attending school in another state, to register there. Id. Johnson also challenges the constitutionality of former article 62.0 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure , redesignated in 2005 as article 62.059 ; he claim s7 the provision violates the prohibition on making ex post facto laws

. See Act of May 26, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 444 , § 8, 1999 Tex. Ge n. Laws 2824, 2827, amended by Act of May 26, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 1008, § 1.01, art. 62.059, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3385, 3403 (current version at Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.05 9 (West 2006) ). Former article 62.062 require d that registered sex offenders who visit municipalities or counties outside the municipality or county where th ey are required to be registered also register in the other municipalities or counties

. Id. Johnson also challenges former article 62.05 (b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, redesignated in 2005 as article 62.057 , which addresses reporting requirements related to changes in the employment or health status of registered sex offenders

. See Act of May 26, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 444, § 6, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 2824, 2 826, amended by Act of May 26, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 1008, § 1.01, art. 62.057, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3385, 3401 (current version at Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.057 (West Supp. 2012 ). Johnson contends that certain other 2005 amendments to c hapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure violate the Texas Constitution’s ex post facto provision. See Tex. Code. Crim. Proc. Ann. art s . 62.061, 62.062, 62.152, 62.153 (West 200 6 ). 2 A savings provision found in the enacting legislation for the 2005 amendments continues the prior law t o the extent that the changes in law made by th e act “ change the elements

2 Johnson groups article 62.062 with his discussion of the 1999 amendments to the sex offender registration statute, but the Legislature enacted article 62.062 in 2005. See Act of May 26, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch.1008, § 1.01, art. 62.062, 2005 Tex. Gen. La ws 3385, 3405.8 of or punishment for conduct constituting a violation of Chapter 62 [

. ] ” See Act of May 26, 2005, 79 th Leg., R.S., ch. 1008, § 4 .01, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3385, 3422. Article 62.061 requires a person who registers to comply with a request for a DNA specimen; article 62.062 prevents local law enforcement from publishing notices regarding registering persons subject to delinquent conduct adjudications ; article 62.152 applies to persons with reportable convictions who reside in another state but work or attend school in this state; and article 62.153 requires a person with a reportable conviction who is employed or attends an institution of higher educa tion in Texas to report to a campus authority. See Tex. Code. Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 62.061, 62.062, 62.152, 62.153. However, u nlike Rodriguez , Johnson does not claim that he was not subject to registering in 1998 after being convicted of aggravated sexual assault

. See Act of June 1, 1997, ch. 668, § 1, 75th Leg., R.S., 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 2253, 22 54. Significantly, Johnson was not prosecuted for violat ing the provisions of the statute that he has cited in his brief. Instead, Johnson was prosecuted for failing to register as a sex offender within seven days of arriving in Montgomery County, Texas

— that requirement existed in the 1998 version of the sex offender registration statute when Johnson was convicted of aggravated sexual assault, a reportable offense

. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.051(a)(1); see also Act of June 1, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 668, § 1, art. 62.02(a), 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 2253, 2254. Because the various requirements about which John son complains on appeal were not applied to him, a ny potential ex post9 facto effect of these provisions on him are too speculative and attenuated to implicate

a rticle I, section 16 of the Texas Constitution

. See Johnson , 930 S.W.2d at 591. Johnson a dditi o nally complains that the amendment to article 62.101 extended the period during which he is required to register

. See Act of May 26, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 1008, § 1 .01, art. 62.101, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3385, 3405 (amended 2011). However, t he law in ef fect in 1998, former article 62.12, also required Johnson to register for the remainder of his life . Former article 62.12 provided : “ T he duty to register for a person with a reportable conviction or adjudication for a sexually violent offense . . . ends when the person dies.” See Act of June 1, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 668, § 1, art. 62.12, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 2253, 2261 (amended 1999, 2003, renumbered 2005) (current version at Tex. Code. Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.101 (West Supp. 2012) ). We conclude that article 62.101 is not punitive in nature , as it is not more severe than the version applicable to Johnson following his 1998 conviction

. See Grimes , 807 S.W.2d at 587. Given the guidance of the Court of Criminal Appeal s in Rodriguez , we are not persuaded that the 1999 and 2005 amendments can be properly classified as punitive, even though the failure of a person required to register results in a criminal penalty

. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102 (West 2006) ; Rodriguez , 93 S.W.3d at 79 ( concluding that t he intent of the 1997 amendment to the Texas’s sex

- offender registration sta tute was civil and remedial in nature) . The Legislature enact ed the sex offender registration statute with the goal of promot ing public safety. Rodriguez , 9310 S.W.3d at 68

- 69. Johnson has not identified how the amendments at issue have increase d his punishment. See i d. at 69 ; see also White v. State , 988 S.W.2d 277 , 278

- 79 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 1999, no pet.) ( holding that because registration is not punitive, the version of the statute in effect on date defendant was accused of failing to report applied)

.

“ In the absence of contrary evidence, we will presume that the legislature acted in a constitutionally sound fashion. ” Rodriguez , 93 S.W. 3 d at 69. Johnson was convicted and sentenced for failing to re gister as a sex offender in 2010, not for committing a sexual assault in 1998. A failure to report if the person had a reportable offense under c hapter 62 was criminal in 1998, when Johnson acquired a
rep ortable conviction , and criminal in 2010, when Johnson fail ed to register with the Sheriff as a sex offender in Montgomery County, as required by c hapter 62

. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102; see also Act of June 1, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S. , ch. 668, § 1, art. 62.1 0 , 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 2253, 2260

. I n 2010, Johnson’s offense was a third degree felony. See Tex. Code Crim . Proc. Ann. art. 62.102(b)(2); see also Rodriguez , 93 S.W.3d at 79 ( holding that no ex post facto violation occurred, where the challenged amendments to the sex offender registration statute were civil and remedial in nature , and that the charged conduct was a criminal offense on the date the defendant failed to register ). Because Johnson has failed to show the amendments at issue violate a rticle I, section 16 of the Texas Constitution, w e overrule Johnson’s sole issue

. We affirm the trial court’s judgment

.11 AFFIRMED.

________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on November 6 , 2012 Opinion Delivered January 16, 2013 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.