Appellant was indicted in 2004 f or off enses c ommitt ed in 2003. In 2005, chapte r 62 of the 1 code of crimi nal proc edure was amended a nd renumbe red. See ge nerally Act of Ma y 26, 2005, 79th L eg ., R.S., ch. 1008, 2005 Tex. Gen. L aws 3385. The 2005 am endments do not eff ect the substance of the statutes in que stion in this c ase. For convenie nce, we will r efe r to the cu rr ent version of the code. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 ON MOTION F OR REHEARING

444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 NO. 03- 05 -00 191 -CR

Jul ian Vi lla nue va , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-20 04- 9041 84 , HO NORAB LE B RENDA KENNEDY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O P I N I O N
Ou r o p i n i o nan d

j u d gm en ti s s u edo nAp ri l 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , ar e w i t h dra wn , and the f ollowing is substi tuted. Appellant Jul ian Villanueva was c onvicted of se x ual assault of a child in 1989. As

a sex off ender , he was require d to r eg ister with loc al law e nforc ement and ke ep his addre ss curre nt with the authorities. SeeTex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 62.051, .055 (West 2006) (“ Reg istration: Ge ne ra l,” “ Cha

ng e of Ad dr e ss” ). I n 200 4, he wa s indi c te d for six counts of fa ilure to re g ist e r a s a

1F or e a c h c ount, the ind ic tme nt a lle g e d th a t a pp e lla nt f a ile d to re po rt

a c ha ng e of a dd re ss 2 or, alternatively , failed to r eport an intended chang e of addre ss. S ee Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. arts. 62.051, .055 (West 2006). 2 se x off e nd e r s pa nn ing f rom May to O c tob e r 2 00 3. A j ur y c on vic te d a

pp e lla nt o f a ll s ix co un ts, 2 enhanc ed to a f

irst-deg ree felony by

alleg ations of four e arlier felony convictions from 1984 a nd 1986, and sente nced him to forty -five year s’ imprisonment for ea ch count. On appe al, he c omplains that the evidenc e is le g ally and fac tually insufficient to support the jury ’s ver dict and that the tria l court e rre d in admitting ce rtain evide nce. We modify the judg ment of convic tion and aff irm the judgme nt as modified.

A p p e l l an t w a s c h ar g e d w i t h s i x c o u n t s o f f a i l u r e t o r e g i s t e r

f o r t h e m o n t h s o f

M ay, J une, Jul y , Aug ust, Septembe r, and October 2003. F or ea ch count, the indictment a lleg ed that ap p el l an t failed to re port a c hang e of a ddress or a n intended cha

ng e of a ddress on the 10th of the month. I n other wor ds, from May throug h October

2003, for e ach month that passe d without ap p el l an tre gi s t er i n g, t h e S t at e a l l ege d a n ew co u n to f f

ai l u re t o re p o rt a ch an ge o r i n t en d edch an ge of a dd re ss. Ap pe lla

nt c omp la ins that th e e vid e nc e is ins uf fi c ie nt to s up po rt

the c on vic tio ns be c a

us e the re wa s n o e vid e nc e tha t he mov e d f

ro m mo nth

to m on th, that he ma de any mov e s in to o r w ith in Tr a vis County , o r t

hat he ha d a

n inte nt t o c ha

ng e his a dd

re ss. A per son convicted of

a “r eporta

ble conviction,” inc luding se x ual assault of a child, id . art. 62.001(5) , (6) ( West S upp. 20 0 7 ), m u st tim ely reg ister with local law e nforc ement in any municipality

in which he resides or intends to re side for more than seve n day s. Id . art. 62.051(a ). A person require d to reg ister who intends to chang e his addre ss must provide his anticipated move date a nd new a ddress to the loca l law enf orce ment authority

desig nated a s his “primary reg istration3

authority ” and to his pa

role off icer

. Id . art. 62.055(a ). I f he c hang es his addre ss, he must reg ister with lo ca l l aw enfor ceme nt in his new municipality or county
. Id . I f he doe s not move to an int e nd e d a dd

re ss w ith in s e ve n d ay s o f h is r e le a se or his de pa rt ur e fr om a pr e vio us re sid e nc e , h e mus t provide a temporar y addre ss and che ck in at lea st once a wee k while his addre ss is temporary

. Id

. arts. 62.051(h) , .55(e) . Unless convi ct ed m o re t han once for a sexually violent offense , a per son require d to reg ister who does not move m ust still repor t once a y ear within thirty

day s befor e or a fter his birthday

. Id . art. 62.058(a ) (West 2 006). F ailure to c omply with any

of the re g istration require ments set out in chapter 62 is a felony

offe nse. Id . art. 62.102 (West 2006). Appellant wa s relea sedo nm an d at o ry s u p erv i s i o nt h re e times betwe en 1989 and 2003,

a pp are ntl y re tur nin g to c us tod

y du e to p aro le vio lations

. Al l thre e tim e s, he sig ne d d oc ume nts explaining the conditions for his re lease , including the require ment to c omply with the sex-offende r reg istration prog ram. Af

ter his re lease in 2000, appellant re g istered with the Tr avis County Sheriff’ s Depa rtment, p r o v id in g ana d dr e s s an d r e tu r n in g to u p d ate h is in f

o r mati o n . O nAp r il 2 5 , 2 0 0 3,
a pp e lla nt w a s r e le a se d on paro le and sig ne d a doc ume nt as sig nin g him a re sid e nc e a t a wo rk -r e le a se fac ili ty
. I n th a t d o c u me n t, th e a d dr e s s w a s p r o v id e d an d a p p e ll an t w a s in s tr

u c te d to r e p o rt to the Travis Co u n ty Sh e r if

f ’ s D e p artm e n t w it

h in s e v e n d ay s o f h is r e le a s e . Ap p e ll an t’ s p ar o le office r testified that when a sex offe nder is re lease d, standard pr ocedur es re quire him to be informe d of the reg istration require ments and instructed to take a bus to Austin, where his pa role office r would be waiting fo r h im. Appellant’s par ole offic er te stified that she ar rived at the bus station to meet appellant a

nd drive him to the work- rele ase f acility , but appellant did n o t g et off the bus or ar rive by so me oth e r m e ans a t th e fa c ili ty . App e lla nt n e ve r r e po rt e d to his pa ro le of fi c e r, the Tr a vis County Sheriff’ s Offic e, or the Depa rtment of Public Safety . He wa s arr ested in Oc tober 2003.4 Ha vin g re vie we d the e vid e nc e , we ho ld t ha t th e e vid e nc e is b oth

le g a lly and fa c tua lly
su ff ic ie nt to su

pp or t on e c on vic tio n f

or fa ilure to r e g ist e r. Th e e vid e nc e e sta bli sh e s th a t a

pp e lla nt, who was a ssigne d an addr ess at the work-re lease fac ility , failed to arr ive at that address as r equire d. Th is s up po rt s a

fi nd ingtha

t a pp e lla nt c ha ng e d his a dd

re ss f ro m th e a ssi g ne d w or

k- re le a se fa c ili ty to another unknown addre ss w ithout re porting the intended or complete d chang e as r equire d. See id. arts. 62.051, .055. We over rule a ppellant’s first two issues as the y ap p l y to the first cha

rg e of failure to reg ister.

The e vidence does not, howeve r, suppo r t a ppellant’s convic tion for an a dditional five counts making the s ame alleg ations. The re cord c ontains no evidenc e that appe llant moved ever y month be tween May and October , and nothing in a rticles 62.051 or 62.055 s u p p o rt s t h e S tate’s decision to a lleg e new offe nses for the same a ction on a monthly basis. Se e id . arts. 62.051, .055. I f we a llo w the State to c ha rg e a pp e lla nt u nd e r c ha pte r 6 2 in su c h a wa y , th e Sta te c ou ld j us t a s e a sil y le ve l ne w c ha

rg e s a g a ins t ot

he r de fe nd ants fo r e ve ry we e k or e ve n e ve ry da y that pa sse s wi tho ut a require d reg istration. I

nstead, a rticles 62.051 and 62.055 a llow the State to char g e a de fenda nt if he chang es his addre ss w ithout re g istering the cha ng e. The evidenc e supports only one cha rg e base d on the cha ng e fr om the assig ned work-r elea se addre ss to an unknown addr ess, a c hang e that occ urre d when a ppellant fa iled to a

ppear at his a ssigne d addre ss a nd reg ister with the Sheriff’ s Depa rtment
an d h is p ar o le o f

f ic e r . We s u s ta in

a p p e ll an t’ s f

ir s t t w o is s u e s a s to c o u n ts tw o thr o u g hs ix. Finally , appellant c omplains of the trial court’s a dmission of the booking shee t from his 20 03 arr e st a

nd his pa ro le vio latio n r e po rt

fr om A pr il 2 00 3, c omp la ini ng that bo th d oc ume nts
c on ta ine d in a dmi ssi ble he ars ay , a nd te sti mony

by law e nf or c e me nt p e rso nn el r e late d to tho se ob je c tio ns . E ve n a ssumin g tha t th e a dmi ssi on

of the re c or ds or re late d te sti mony wa s im pr op e r, itSe e Gl iv e ns v . S tate , 9 1 8 S. W. 2 d 3 0 , 3 2

- 3 4 ( T e x. Ap p . — H o u s to n [1 s t Dist.] 1996, 3 pet. re f’d) (improper

admission of ext rane ous-offe n s e ev i dence during punishment phase); Cas til lo v . S

tate , 699 S.W .2d 337, 338-39 (T ex . App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, pet. re f’d) (improper admission of jail car ds and re fer ence to void prior convictions during punishment phase); se e als o Cl e wis v . S

tate , 222 S.W .3d 460, 467-68 (Tex. A pp.—Tyler 2007, pet. re f’d) (Grif fith, J ., dissenting) (af

ter jury was e mpaneled a

nd sworn, State dismiss ed six of seve n indictments pursuant to p le a a g re e me nt i n r e ma ini ngc a se ; di sse nti ngjus tic e dis a g re e d w ithma jor ity ’s ho ldi ngthat State was not bar

red f rom introducing evidenc e of dismissed case s at punishment, assertingthat defe ndant should be g rante d new punishment hea ring ). 5 would not be re versible e rror . See Te x. R. A pp . P. 44 .2 (b ); Pa tto n v . S tate , 25 S.W .3d 387, 394 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref ’d). A s discussed above , the evidenc e, eve n excluding the objected- to evidence , was sufficient to show that appe llant was informe d of his duties to reg ister as a sex offende r, wa s told his assigned a ddress, never appea red at that addre ss, a

nd failed to reg ister a diffe rent a ddress upon his re lease . We overrule appellant’ s issues three through seven.

Appellant asse rts on rehe aringthat due to our ref o rm at ion of the judg ment of conviction, we should re mand the ca se for a new pun i s h m en t h ea ri n g . We disag ree . Duringthe punishment phase, the St ate emphasized appellant’ s criminal hi story of four prior fe lony

convictions (three burg laries and the agg ravated s exual assault of a child commit ted betwe en 1984 and 1989) and multipl e violations and re vocations of pr obation. Although the State noted the multiple char g es and explained that punishment would run concur rently , its emphasis was on a ppellant’s cr iminal hist ory and his failure to abide by

the terms of pr obation. The State said, “How many chanc es does this man g et? How many

chanc es does t h i s m an get t o come ba ck to our c ommunity and hurt somebody else? ” L ater , in closing a rguments , t h e S t at e s ai d, “His ar g ument is that there ha s not been a ny evidenc e pre sented of a

ny other c onvictions, but I think six felony convictions is enoug h. . . . He ha s g otten plenty

of bre aks alre ady .” The trial court did not improperly admit evidence of extraneous bad ac ts or defe ctive prior c onvictions, and the jury asses s ed s eparate se ntence s for e ach c harg e. 36

Se e Ha rri

s v . S tate , 34 S.W
. 3d 609, 613-15 (Te x . App.—Waco 2000, pet. r ef’ d) (de fenda nt convicted of

two counts of mansla u gh t er and two counts of intox ication manslaug hter, a ll related to s a me de a th; c ourt

of a pp e a ls v a c a te d thre e c on vic tio ns and re fo rm e d ju dg me nt t o r e fl e c t si ng le conviction for intoxicat i o n m ansl aug hter, holding , “This ca use nee d not be re manded to the tria l court for a re assessment of punishment bec ause the trial judg e asse ssed a separ ate sentenc e for e ach of fe ns e .” ); se e als o F

itt s v . S tate , 982 S.W .2d 175, 180-81 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1998, pet. re f’d) (def

endant who killed his wife was co nvicted of murde r by arson a nd murder f

or
remune ration; court of

appea ls refor

med j udg ment to refle ct conviction for murder by

arson, the “most serious” of

fense , holding, “ Be cause the trial cour t assessed a

separ ate se ntence fo r each offe nse, we need not r emand the c ase to the tria l court for a re assessment of punishment.”)

. We have he ld that the evidence is sufficie nt to support a sing le conviction for failure to reg ister. The e vidence does not support the re maining f ive convictions. We there fore ref orm the j u d g m e n to f

c o n v i c t i o nt o r e f

l e c ta s i n g l e c o n v i c t i o nan d

a s i n g l e f o rt y - f i v e y e ar s e n t e n c e o nc o u n tI, deleting the other f

ive counts fr om the judgme nt. We affirm the judg ment as re formed.

_____________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Reforme d and, as Ref

ormed, Af

firmed on Motion for Rehe aring Filed: Jul y

2, 2008 Pub lis h