Cha

pte r 62 of the c od e of c ri min a l pr oc e dure , th e Te xas S e x Of fe nd e r R e g istra

tio n Pr og ra

m, 1 was ree nacte d and amende d eff ective Septe mber 1, 2005. See Act of Ma y 8, 2005, 79th L eg ., R.S., c h. 10 08 , § 1. 01 , 200 5 Te x. Ge n. L aws 33 85
. No ne of the a me ndme nts are pe rt ine nt t o th is a pp e a l. We will cite the curr ent s tatutes and, in pare ntheses, note the c orre sponding a rticle number s in effe ct a t th e tim e of

a pp e lla nt’ s tr ia l. 

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

NO. 03-04-00555- CR

M ar ion Dua ne Sc og gin s, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF CALDWELL COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. 2004- 102, HO NORAB LE CHARLES R. RAMSAY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant Marion Duane Scog g ins guilty of failing to r eg ister as a se x offe nder a nd assessed punishment at fifteen y ear s’ imprisonment. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 62.102 (West Supp. 2005) (for mer a rt. 62.10). Appellant conte nds t h e t ri al court e rre d by

1 permitting the State to amend the indictment afte r t rial bega n and by admitting an ir

rele vant pre vious
c onvi cti on in evide nc e . H e a lso a sse rt s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o support the conviction. We will overrule these c ontentions and aff irm the conviction.2 Th e ind ic tme nt a lle g e d th a t a pp e lla nt v iol a te d h is l if

e -l on g ob lig a tio n to ve ri fy his sex off ender reg istration e very ninety day s, a second deg ree felony
. Se e id . art. 62.102(b) (3) ( former art. 62.10(b) (3)) . To prove appellant’s guilt as allege d, the S tate was require d to prove that he had two convictions for se x ually violent offense s. Se e id . a rt s. 62 .0 58 (a ), 62 .1 01 (a)(1) ( fo rm e r a rt s. 62 .0 6( a ), 62 .1 2( a )( 1) ). To thi s e nd , th e ind ic tme nt a lle g e d th a t a pp e lla nt:
h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d

t w o o r m o r e t i m e s f

o r a s e x u a l l y v i o l e n to f

f e n s e , n a m e l y, I nd e c e nc y wi th a Chil d, in ca us e numbe r 93- 11 9 on the 31 st d ay of Janu ary 19 95 in the 22nd J udicial District Court of Caldw el l County , Texas, and in cause number 9 4 4 8 1 8 on the 13th day

of F ebrua

ry 1995 in the 147th J udicial District Court of Travis County , Texas . . . .
I n his first point of error , appellant c ontends that the S tate was improperly allowed to amend the indictment af ter trial beg an. The alleg ed ame ndment happene d afte r the State off ere d in evidence its ex hibit 2, appellant’s judg ment of convic tion for indece ncy with a child by

contac t and other court doc uments from Tra vis County cause number 944818. Appellant objec ted that the exhibi t was “not re levant” a nd “not admissible” b ec au s e of “ a fatal varia nce be tween it and the indictment.” Specific ally , appellant pointed out t hat the judg ment rec ited that appellant wa s
c on vic te d o n M arc h 3 1, 19 95 , rathe r tha n o n F e br ua ry 13 , 1 99 5, a s a lle g e d. Th e State re sp on de d to the objection by

“mov[ing] to abandon the date Fe bruar y 13th from the indictment,” so that the indictment would simpl y

alleg e that the c onviction in cause numb er 944818 was “ on 1995.” The motion was g rante d over a ppellant’s objec tion. Under article 28.10(b), a

defe ndant has a

n absolute veto powe r over p roposed amendments to the c harg ing instrument afte r trial on the merits has begun. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. A n n . art
. 2 8
. 1 0 ( b ) ( W e s t1 9 8 9 ) ; Hi ll in v. S tate , 808 S.W .2d 486, 489 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)The c ontinuing validity of Eastep ’s discussion of the subjec t of surplusag e in an indictment 2 is ope n to que stion in light of the opinion in Go lli ha r v . S tate , 46 S.W .3d 243, 257 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), in which the sur

plusag e rule was ove rruled in the c ontext of evide nce suf ficienc y . 3 (plurality op.). Not all alterations to an indictment are amendments, howe ver. Cer tain alleg ations may be abandone d by

the State without invoking ar ticle 28.10. Ea ste

p v . S tate , 941 S.W .2d 130, 135 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 7 ). Am o n g o t h er t h i n gs , t h e S t at e m ay ab an d o ns u rp l u s age , t h at i s , l an gu age that is not essential to constitute the offense and that may be omitted without affe cting the ac cusation ag ainst the defe ndant. Id . at 134. W h et h er t he dele tion of the day and month of appe llant’s 2
c on vic tio n in

c a us e numbe r 9 44 81 8 w a s an im pe rm iss ibl e a me ndme nt o f s ub sta nc e or a pe rm iss ibl e
a ba nd on me nt of surp lus a g e is a qu e sti on we do no t de c ide , b e c a

us e we c on c lud e that any e rr or in its de le tio n f

ro m th e ind ic tme nt w a s h arm le ss. At on e tim e , viol a tio ns of art ic le 28 .1 0 w e re c on sid e re d to be immun e fr om h arm le ss
err or analy sis a

nd thus a utomatic reve rsible err or. Id . at 13 5; So dip o v . S tate , 815 S.W .2d 551, 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). I n Cai n v . S tate , howeve r, the court of criminal appe als held that except fo r a na rr owg ro up of fe de ra l c on sti tut ion a l e rr or s, no e rr or is c a te g or ic a lly

immun e to a

ha rm le ss
err or ana ly sis. 947 S.W .2d 262, 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The Cain court ove rruled “ any other decision [that] conflicts with the pre sent opinion.” Id
. C i t i n g C a in , th e c ourt

of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls has sin c e a

p p li e d h ar

ml e s s e r r o r an a ly s is to a v io lati o n o f arti c le 2 8
. 1 0 an d f o u n d th e e r

r o r to be harmless. W

rig ht v. Sta te , 2 8 S. W.3 d 5 26 , 5 31 -3 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); se e als o F lor es v . S tate , 13 9 S. W.3 d 6 1, 65 -66 (Te x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 20 04 , p e t. r e f’ d) ; Va le nti v . S tate , 49 S.W .3d 594, 598-99 (Te x . App.—For

t Worth 2001, no pet.).4 Had the State’ s reque st to alter the indictment be en ref used, the va

rianc e betwe en the indictment a

nd the proof reg arding the date of conviction in c ause number 944818 would not have b ee n m at er ial. Se e Go lli ha r v . S tate , 4 6 S
. W
. 3 d 2 4 3 , 2 5 7 ( T e x. C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 )
. A v ar i an c e is materia l, and thus rende rs the evide nce insuff icient, only

if the indictment as written did not g ive the
acc used suffic ient notice to pre pare an ad eq u ate defense or if prose cution under the defic ient indictment would subject the a ccuse d to the risk of double jeopa rdy
. Id
. I n the context of this ca use, do ub le je op ard

y is n ot a fa c tor . A s f

or no tic e , th e ind ic tme nt de sc ri be d a pp e lla nt’ s T ra vis County conviction by

offe nse, county , court, c ause numbe r, and date. E v en wi t h the date e rror , the indictment was plainly

sufficie nt t o gi v e appellant notice of the conviction at issue. In fac t, the
re c or d r e fl e c ts that a

pp e lla nt wa s aw are of the date dis c re pa nc y and ha d obta ine d o the r d oc ume nts from cause number 944818 befor e trial beg an. We hold that if the deletion from the indictment of the mon th a

nd da y of a pp e lla nt’ s c on vic tion in cause numbe r 9 44 81 8 w a s a vio latio n o f a

rt ic le 28.10(b), the e rror

was ha rmless. See F

lores , 139 S.W .3d at 66-67. Point of err or one is over ruled. I n h is s e c on d poin t of er

ro r, a pp e lla nt co nte nd s tha t the c ourt e rr e d b y a dmi tti ngin evidenc e State ex hibit 3, a certified copy of appellant’s judg ment of convic tion in the 22nd District Court of C aldwell C ounty in cause number 93-199. A ppellant urg es that the judg ment was irr eleva nt
and ina dmi ssibl e becau se it de sc ri be s th e of fe ns e fo r whic h a

pp e lla nt w a s c on vic te d a s me re ly ind e c e nc y wi th a c hil d, wi tho ut s pe c if

yingthat th e of

fe ns e inv olv e d s e xua l c on ta c t. I ndece ncy

with a child by

contac t is a sexually

violent offense under the terms of the sex offender

reg istration prog ram but i n d ec en cy wi t h a child by exposure is not. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.001(6)( A) (for mer art. 62.01(6)( A)). Although the judgme nt of conviction in cause number 93-119 doe s not ex pressly rec ite that appellant wa s convicted o f i ndece ncy by5

contac t, it does state that the offe nse wa s a sec ond deg ree felony , and it imposes a si x teen- y ear prison term. In 1 9 9 0 , wh en the of fense for whic h appellant wa s convicted in c ause numbe r 93-119 wa s committed, indecenc y with a child by contac t was a second deg ree felony , as i t still is. Act of Ma y 12, 1981, 67th L eg ., R.S., ch. 202, § 3, 1981 Tex. Ge n. L aws 471, 472 (cur rent version at Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 21.11(d) (West 2003)). Ind ec en cy b y exposure was a

nd still is only

a third deg ree felony
. Id . Thus, the judg ment in cause number 93-119 is su ff i ci ent to prove that appellant’s
c on vic tio n in

that c a us e wa s f or ind e c e nc y

wi th a c hil d b y c on ta c t, a

nd a pp e lla nt’ s ob je c tio n to its admission on this g round wa s without merit. Poi nt of err or two is overr uled. Ne xt, a pp e lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e is legal ly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s us ta in h is conviction. Se e J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979) (leg al s ufficie ncy standard of revie w); Gr iff in v . S tate , 6 14 S.W. 2d

15 5, 15 8- 59 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 81 ) ( same ). Hi s a rgume nt i s si mpl y
a var iation on the arguments made in points one and two. For the re asons we ha ve alr eady

discussed, th er e is not a mater ial varia nce be tween the pleadingand the pr oof with respe ct to appellant’ s conviction in cause number 944818, a nd the judg ment in cause number 93-119 is suff icient to prove that the conviction wa s for a sexually violent offense . The e vidence is le g ally sufficie nt to support a findingbey ond a re asonable doubt that appellant had twice bee n convicted of sexually violent offe nses, and that he there fore had a lifetime obligation to report eve ry ninety day s. Point of er

ror three is overrule d.

Finally , appella n t contends that the e vidence is factua lly insufficient to sustain the conviction. Se e Zun iga v . S tate , 1 4 4 S.W .3d 477, 484-85 (Te x . Crim. App. 2004) (fa ctual sufficie ncy

standard of

revie w). Specifica lly , appellant urg es that the State did not adequate ly prove that he a c tua lly

fa ile d to re po rt

a s r e qu ir e d b y

the se x off

e nd e r r e g ist

ratio n p ro g ra

m.6 JoAnn B lum e te sti fi e d th a t sh e wa s th e a dmi nis tr a tiv e a ssi sta nt t o th e Ca ldw e ll County Sheriff. Among her duties wa s the administration of the sex offende r re g istration prog ram for the co u n t y . Blume te stified that her r ecor ds reg ardingappellant’ s compliance with the reg istration prog ram, introduce d as State exhibit s 4 and 6, re flec ted that appellant last repor ted on May 9, 20 03 , n ine ty

da y s b e fo re the date on

or a bo ut whic h a

pp e lla nt fa ile d to re po rt a s a lle g e d in the ind ic t m e n t
. A p p e l l a

n tar g u e s t h a tt h i s t e s t i m o n y i s f a c tu a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n tt o p r o v e a

f a i l u r e to repor t beca use he mig ht have reported to some other person or bec ause r eleva nt documents might have be en lost. These arguments g o to the weig ht of the evidenc e, and even unde r fa ctual suff iciency revie w we must give due defe renc e to the fa ct-finde r’s de terminations conce rning the weig ht and
cre dibilit y

of the e vidence
. J

oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Giving the jur y ’s ve rd ic t th e de fe re nc e it i s d ue , th e pr oo f o f guil t is no t to o w e a k to su pp or t a fi nd ingof

g uil t bey ond a re asonable doubt. See Zuniga , 1 44 S.W. 3d a t 48 4- 85 ; Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 11. Point of er ror f our is overr

uled. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: Apr il 27, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh