### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 00 94 -C R

______________________________ CURTI S MANTOOTH, JR., Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appea l from the 6th J udicial District Court

L amar County , Texas Trial Court No. 21797

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Opinion by

J ustice Carte rSee Act of May 28, 2003, 78th L eg ., R.S., ch. 374, § 14, 2003 Tex. Ge n. L aw s 1505, 1 1513–14, amende d and renumbe red by Act of May 24, 2005, 79th L eg ., R.S., ch. 1008, § 1.01, 2005 Tex. Gen. L aws 3385, 3410. 2 O P I N I O N Curtis Mantooth, J r., appe als h i s co n v iction for fa ilure to comply with sex -off

ender reg istration r equire ments. I n 1991, Mantooth was convic ted of attempted sexual assault of a child. As discussed below, Mantooth was subject to the l ifetime dut y to reg ister under Article 62.101( a). See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 62.101(a ) (Ve rnon 2006). On or about September

18, 2006, M an t o o t h fa i l edt o re p o rt a c h an ge i nem p l o y m en twi t h i ns ev en d ay s an d fa i l edt o re p o rt h i s ch an ge of re sidence within seven day s. Th e State or ig ina lly

ind ic te d M anto oth

un de r f or me r A rt ic le 62 .1 2( a ), the pred eces so r t o 1 Article 62.101( a). The orig inal indictment, though, incor rec tly alleg ed Mantooth h a d

b e e n c o nv ic ted of indec ency

with a child in 1991. I mmediately befor e voir dire , the S t at e m o v ed to amend the indictment to reflec t Man t o o t h h ad been convicte d of attempted se x ual assault of a child. The de fe ns e did

no t obje c t to the a me ndme nt, and the tr ia l court g ra nte d th e Sta

te ' s mo tio n. Th e State amende d the indictment by interlineation to ref

lect Mantooth had be en conv ic te d o f a ttempted sexual

a ssa ult of a c hil d b ut, al so , ame nd ed th e ind ic tme nt t o a lle g e a du ty to r e g ist e r u

nd e r A rt ic le 62.101(b) of

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art

. 62.101(b) ( Ver

non 2006).3

At trial, the State pre sented e vidence that Mantooth had been convicte d of attempted se x ual

as s au l t o f a ch i l d an d h ad fa i l ed t o co mp l y wi t h t h e s ex -o ff en d er re gi s t ra t i o nre qu i re m en t s . Al t h o u gh it a ll e g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t th a t M an to o th h a d a d u ty to r e g is te r u n d e r A rti c le 6 2

. 1 0 1 ( b ) (ten-y ear

re g istratio n r e qu ir e me nt) , th e State pr ov e d th a t Ma nto oth ha d a du ty to r e g ist e r u

nd e r A rt ic le 62.101(a) (lifetime re g istration require ment). See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 62.101(a ), (b)

. The lifetime r eg istration require ment is predicated on a conviction for a sexual offense, w here as the te n- y e ar r e qu ir e me nt i n A rt ic le 62 .1 01 (b ) i s based on a juv e nil e c ri me that w a s c e rt if ie d f or a du lt prosec ution. The trial court instructe d the jury based on A rticle 62.101(b) without objection (" and [hi s] dut y to reg ister ex pires under article 62.101(b)" ). The jur y found Mantooth g uilty , and the tria l

c ourt se nte nc e d h im t o e ig ht ye ars ' imp ri so nme nt. Mantooth raises six i ss ues on appe al. In his first two points of error , Mantooth argues the indictment was funda

mentally defe ctive. Mantooth' s third and fourth points of er ror a rg ue the evidenc e is leg ally

and fa ctually

insufficient. In his fifth issue, Mantooth claims the trial cour t erre d in convicting him of a third deg ree felony . I n his last issue, Mantooth argues t he sente nce e x cee ds the applica

ble punishment rang e. I. The Ind ictm ent Doe s Not Contain F und am ental Error I n Mantooth' s first and sec ond points of error , Mantooth claims the er ror in the indictment constitutes fundamenta l erro r beca use it failed to alleg e whe n Mantooth' s duty to reg ister expired

un de r A rt ic le 62 .1 01 (b ). Manto oth a lso a lle g e s th e ind ic tme nt f a ile d to a lle g e he wa s und e r a du ty4

to reg ister at the time of the offense. Historica lly , defe cts of substance wer e " fundame ntal" e rror s and could be cha lleng ed at a ny point in the procee dings. Se e, e .g ., Mo rri s v . S tate , 13 Tex. Ct . App. 65 , 7 1 ( 18 82 ); se eals o Co ok v . S tate , 902 S.W .2d 471, 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). I n 1985, Texas voters appr oved an a

mendment to Section 12 of Article V of the Te x as Constitut ion t h at t he prese ntation of an indictment or infor mation vests the trial court with jur isdiction ove r the ca se. See T EX . C O N ST . art . V , § 12 ; s e e a l s o Stu de r v . Stat e , 799 S.W .2d 263, 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). A def endant now w aives a

ny defe ct of for

m or substance in an information if no objection is made befor e the date trial commenc es. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 1.14(b) (Ve rnon 2005). We note an instrument which is not an indictment or infor mation under Ar

ticle V, Section 12 of the Te x as Constitut ion f ails to ve st the trial court with jurisdiction and the issue c an be r aised for the f irst time on appeal. Se e Du ro n v . S tate , 956 S.W .2d 547, 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (Wo ma c k, J., c on c ur

ri ng ); Cook , 9 02 S.W. 2d

a t 47 9– 80 ; se e als o Tea l v . S tate , 230 S.W .3d 172, 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The omi ssion of an element of the of fense , though, doe s not prevent the instrument from beingan information. The Tex as C ourt of C riminal Appea ls held, in Studer , that "the lang uag e in Art. V, § 12, 'c harg ing a person with the commi ssion of an offense ,' does not mean,

. . . that eac h element of

the offe nse must be alleg ed in orde r to have an indictment or infor mation

a s c on te mpl a te d by Ar

t. V, § 12." Studer , 7 9 9 S.W .2d at 272. " [T] o comprise a n [i nformation] wi thi n th e de fi nit ion

pr ov ide d b y

the c on sti tut ion , a

n in str ume nt m us t c ha rg e : ( 1) a pe rs on ; ( 2) wi th th e com mi ss io n o f an o ffen se. " Cook , 902 S.W .2d at 477. " [A] written instrument is an indictment5

or information u n d er t he Constituti on if it acc uses someone of a cr ime with enoug h clar ity and specifi c it y to id e n ti f

y th e p e n a l s tatute u n d e r w h ic h th e St a te in te n d s to p r o s e c u te , e v e n if the in st rum ent is ot herw is e def ect iv e." Duron , 95 6 S .W .2 d at 5 50 –5 1. B e c a us e the inf

or matio n is

su ff ic ie nt t o ide nti fy the pe na l statut e un de r wh ic h the State int e nd s to pr os e c ute , th e e rr or is n ot a "f undamental" err or. Mantooth' s first and sec ond points of error are overr uled. II. The Evi de nc e Is L e ga llyand F ac tu all y Suffic ie nt Man to o th c o n te n d s , in

h is th ir d an d f o u rth p o in ts o f e r r o r , th a t t h e e v id e n c e is le g a ll y

and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt. B e fo re we be g in o ur ana ly sis , a

br ie f o ve rv ie w o f t

he re le va nt s tatut e s is in order . A per son commits the offense of fa ilure to comply with reg istration req u irements if the person " is require d to reg ister and fails to comply with any require ment" of

Chapter 62. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 62.102 (V ernon 2006)

. There is no dispute co n ce rni ng whether Mantooth failed to comply with the reg istration require ments of Chapter 62. Whether one is requir ed to re port for his or her lifetime or only for ten y e ars , th e re po rt ing re qu ir e me nts duri ng the re le va nt pe ri od are the same . Ape rs on fa ils to c omp ly wi t h re gi s t ra t i o n r e q u i re m en t s i f h e o r s h e f ai l s t o gi v e s ev en d ay s ' n o t i ce o f i n t en tt o ch an ge

a dd re sse s, fa ils to r e po rt

a c ha ng e of a dd re ss w ith in s e ve n day s, or fa ils to r e po rt

a c ha ng e in employ ment status within seven day s. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . arts. 62.055, 62.057(b) , 6 2

. 1 0 2 (V ern o n2 0 0 6 ). T h e S t at e i n t ro d u ce d ev i d en ce t h at M an t o o t h h ad fa i l edt o re p o rt a c h an ge in e mpl oy me nt status wi thi n sev e n day s, fa ile d to g ive se ve n d ay s' no tic e of his int e nt t o c ha

ng e his6

residenc e, and f

ailed to re port his ch an ge o f residenc e within seven da y s. Mantooth does not challeng e the pr oof of these fac ts. The dispute in this case is whether the State prove d Mantooth had a duty to reg ister under

Article 62.101( b) as a lleg ed. A violation of Article 62.102 is a state jail f elony if the person' s duty to r eg ister expires under Article 62.101( b) or ( c), but is a third de g ree felony if the per son' s duty

to reg is t er ex p i re s under Ar tic le 62 .1 01 (a ). Ar

tic le 62 .1 01 (a ) p ro vid e s: Ex cept a s provided by

Subsection (b) a

nd Subchapter

I , the duty

to reg i s ter for

a person e nds when the pe rson dies i f t he per son has a r eporta ble conviction or adjudication, other

than an a djudication of delinquent c onduct, for: (1) a sexually violent offense

. . . . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art . 6 2. 10 1( a ). A " se xua lly vio le nt o ff

e ns e " inc lud e s se xua l a ssa ult

. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 62.001(6) (A) ( Ver non Supp. 2008). The sex-offe nder r eg istration statute specific ally includes attempted se x ual offe nses as " repor table convic tions or adjudications." T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art . 6 2. 00 1( 5) (G ) ( Ve rn on Sup p. 20 08 ). Sub c ha

pte r Ic on c e rn s e arl y termination of a p er s o n 's o bligation to reg ister and is not rele vant in this case. Ar ticle 62.101(b) pr ov ide s a s f

oll ow s in its e nti re ty : Exc e pt a s p ro vid e d b y

Sub c ha pte r I , th e du ty

to r e g ist e r f

or a pe rs on oth e rw ise subject t o Subsection (a) ends on the 10th annive rsar y of the date on which the person is re lease d from a penal instit ution or discharg es community supervision or the cour t dismi sses the cr iminal procee dings a g ainst the person a nd discharg es the person, whic hever

date is later , if the per so n 's d u ty to reg ister is based on a conviction or a

n order of d eferre d adjudication in a c ause that was transf err ed to a district court or c riminal district court under Section 54.02, Family

Code.Th e State c ite s Fi sh e r v. S tate , 88 7 S.W. 2d 49 , 53 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 94 ); Sm ith v . S tate , 2 13 5 S. W.3 d 2 59 , 2 61 –6 2 ( Te x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 20 04 , n o p e t.) ; Ra mo s v . S tate , No. 06-05-00103- CR, 2006 Te x . App. L EXI S 3750 (Tex. A pp.—Texarkana May 4, 2006, no pet.) (not de signated for publication), for

the proposition that t h e suff iciency of the e vidence should be measur ed by the char g e submitted to the jury

. Sm ith does not support the State' s arg ument. Se e Sm ith , 135 S.W .3d at 261. Ramos , 2006 Tex. App. L EXI S 37 5 0 , i s an unpublished opinion and has no pre cede ntial value. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.7. I n Ma lik v . S tate , the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals re viewed a line of c a se s r e qu ir ing the su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to be me a sure d by the jur y c ha rg e , a nd sp e c if ic a lly overru le d th os e c a se s. 95 3 S. W.2 d 2 34 , 2 39 –4 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ) ( " No lon g e r s ha ll sufficie ncy o f t he evide nce be measure d by the jury char g e ac tually

g iven." ). Instead, the Te x as Court of C ri m i n al Ap peals a nnounced that the test was base d on the eleme nts of the offe nse as define d by

the hy pothetically

corr ect jury

char g e. Id. at 240. 7 T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 62.101(b) . Article 62.101( c) pr ovides a " catc h-all" provision that provides for

repor t ab l e co n v i ctions or adjudications not described by subsection (a ). T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 62.101(c ) (Ve rnon 2006). Th e a me nd e d in dic tme nt a lle g e d th a t Ma nto oth ha d a du ty to r e g ist e r u

nd e r A rt ic le 62.101(b). In order to evaluate t he suff iciency of the e vidence , we must first deter mine whether

the State ' s a lle g a tio n th a t Ma

nto oth ha d a du ty to re g ist e r und e r Ar

tic le 62 .1 01 (b ) mus t be inc lud e d in the hy pothetically

corr ect jury

char g e. A. The Hypothetically Corr ect Jury Charge M ust Inclu de the Statutory Elem ents of t he Offen se and t he St at ut or ilyAl te r nat ive M anne r and M e ans T h e S t at e i n co rr ec t l y

ar gu es t h at we ev al u at e t h e s u ff i ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce b y t h e c h ar ge submitt ed to the jury

. The Te x as Court of Criminal Ap p eals ha s held that evidenc e suff iciency 2 should be measur ed ag ainst a " hy pothetically

corr ect" jury char g e. Se e Go lli ha r v . S tate , 46 S.W .3d 24 3, 25 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ); Ma lik, 9 53 S.W. 2d a t 24 0; se e als o W

oo ley v . S

tate ,8

No. P D- 0861-07, 2008 Tex. Crim. App. L EXI S 762 (Tex. C rim. App. J une 25, 2008) ( clar ifying fa ct u al suffic iency

measure d by

hy pothetically

corr ect jury

char g e). Ma lik

c on tr ols " e v e n in the absenceof alleged jury chargeerror ." Gollihar , 46 S.W .3d at 255. A " hy pothetically corr ect" jury char g e is "one that acc urate ly sets out the l aw, is authorized by the ind ic tme nt, do e s n ot u nn e c e ssa ri ly inc re a se the State ' s b ur de n o f p ro of or unneces sari ly restric t the State' s theories of liability , and ade quately descr ibes the particula

r offe nse for which the defe nd ant was tr ied ." Ma lik, 953 S.W .2d at 240. The " hy pothetically

corr ect" jury

char g e ca

nnot "w holly re- wr i t e t h e i n dictment," but is not requir ed to " trac k exactly all of the a lleg ations in the in di ctm ent ." Gollihar , 46 S.W .3d at 253. I f t he essential elements of the of fense are modified by t h e i n d i ct m en t, the modification must be included. Id. at 2 5 4

. T h e h y p o t h et i ca l l y

co rr ec tch ar ge "needno t i nco rpo rat e al legat io ns th at gi ve ri se t o i mm ate ri al v ari ances ." Gollihar , 46 S.W .3d at 256. I n Curry , the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the " ' law' as ' authorized by the indictment' must be the statutory elements" of the off

ense c harg ed " as m o d i fi ed by the cha rg ing in st rum ent ." Cur

ry v . S tate , 30 S.W .3d 394, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Be cause the phra se " by using a nd threatening to use dea dly forc e name ly , a fire arm , o n [t he victim]" alleg ed a statutory alternative "ma

nner or means," the c o u rt h eld t he State wa s bound by the alleg ation in the indictment. Id. a t 4 0 3

– 0 4

. Ju d g e K e ll e r h a s s u c c in c tl y

s u mm ar iz ed Curry as holding, " [w] hen a statute lists m ore tha

n one method of committing an offe nse, and the indictment alleg es some, butTh e re is n o a lle g a tio n th a t A rt ic le 62 .1 01 (b ) i s a sta tut or ily a lte rn a tiv e mann e r a nd me ans . 3 Th e Te xas C ourt

of Cr imi na l App e a ls c a

uti on e d th a t " [n]ot e ve ry lis t of a lte rn a tiv e s in a statut e wi ll con st it ut e a 'man ner o r m eans ' of com mi tt i n g t h e off ens e." Cur

ry , 30 S.W .3d at 398. We do not believe the list of categ ories specify ing the circ umstances whe n one must repor t for life or

only for ten y ear s constitutes statutorily alternative manner

and mea ns. We n ote the Au sti n Co ur

t of Ap pe a ls, wh ile dis c us sin g a dif fe re nt i ssu e , h a s h e ld t

he du ty 4 to reg ister is an element of the offe nse. Ba lla rd v . S tate , 1 49 S.W. 3d

69 3, 69 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us tin 2004, pet. re f' d). We are not awar e of a ny other c ases a ddressing wh et h er Ar ticle 62.101(b) is a n essential ele ment of the off ense of failure to reg ister.

9 no t al l, of t he s tat ut ori ly li st ed met ho ds , the St ate is li mi ted to th e met ho ds all eged." Fu lle r v . S tate , 73 S.W .3d 250, 255 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Keller , P.J ., concur ring ). Stated succinc tly , the hy

pothetically

corr ect jury

char g e must include both 1) alleg ations that fo rm an in tegral part of an e sse nti a l e le me nt o f t he of fe ns e or a lle g a tio ns that are statut or ily alternative manner and means, and 2) materia l varianc es. See G ollihar , 46 S.W.3 d at 256

. We w ill first examine whether

the allegation that Mantooth had a duty to reg ister under Article 62.101(b) wa s an int eg ral part of an essential element of t he offense and then ex amine whether the alleg ation was a mater ial varia

nce. B. The Allegation that Mantooth Had a Duty Und er A rtic le 62.101(b ) I s Not an Ess e nt ialEle m e nt Th e ne xt que sti on

be fo re thi s Co ur

t is wh e the r t

he a pp lic a ble du ty un de r A rt ic le 62 .1 01 is an " integ ral pa

rt of an e ssential element" of the off ense. Se e id

. at 2 5 4 (e x p l ai n i n g Cur ry , 30 3 S.W .3d 394). Whether the various subsec tions of Article 62.101 for m an integ ral pa

rt of an e ssential element of

an off ense a ppear s to be an unsettled a rea of law. 4Apprendi v. New Je rsey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 5 10 When determining whether Apprendi applied to a pr edec essor to Article 62.101, the Texas 5 Court of Criminal A

ppeals sug g ested in a footnote that the "muc h pref err ed proc edure is to plead the sp eci fi c su bs ect io n i n t he i nd ict men t. " J ua re z v . S tate , 1 98 S .W .3 d 79 0, 79 2– 93 n. 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ) ( co n cl u d i n g Ap pr e nd i did not apply). This statement im p l i es t hat alleg ation of the subsection i s n o t re quired. I f it is the "much pr efe rre d" pr actice , it is not the required prac tice. Be cause essential ele ments of an offe n s e m u s t be alleg ed in the indictment, Juarez sug g ests the specific subsection under Article 62.101 is not an e ssential element of the offe nse. Al tho ug h me re ly

pe rs ua siv e a

uth or ity , th e fo rm

c ha rg e in t he Te xas P ra c tic e Se ri e s me re ly require s the repor

table conviction to be included in the indictment; it does not require the indictment to specify which subsec tion applies to the offe nse. 7 M C C O R M I CK , B LA CKW ELL & B LA CKW ELL , T EX A S P RACT I CE : C RI M I N A L F O RM S AND T RI A L M A N U A L § 42.12 (2005). A num ber of Texas case s indicate that indictments often f ail to a lleg e which subsec tion of Article 62.101 is applica ble. See Ra mo s v . S

tate , N o. 13 -0 5- 00 015- CR, 20 06 Te x. Ap p. L EX I S 49 22 (T e x. Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i J une 8, 2006, pet. r ef'd) (m em . op., not desig nated f or publication) ( indictment merely alleg ed repor table convic tion for sex u al as sault and def endant c ommitt ed off

ense " while beinga per son

re qu ir e d to re g ist e r" ); Ba se yv . S tate , N o . 0 1

- 0 3

- 0 1 0 1 4

- CR , 2 0 0 5 Tex. Ap p . L E X I S 1 3 2 9 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Fe b. 17, 2005, no pet.) (me m. op., not designated for publication) (i n d i ct m en tm er el y

al l ege d re p o rt ab l e c o n v i ct i o nan d d ef en d an tco m m i t t ed o ff

en s e "w h i l e b ei n g a11

pe rs on re qu ir e d to re g ist e r" ); Mi lli ga n v . S tate , No. 03-99-00191- CR, 2000 Tex. App. L EXI S 2560 (Tex. A p p . —

A u s ti n A p r . 2 0 , 2 0 0 0 , p e t. r e f ' d ) ( n o t d e s ig n a te d f

o r p u b li c a ti o n ) ( me r e ly

alleg ed repor table convic tion). But see Can tu v . S tate , No. 02-05-00192- CR, 2006 Tex . App. L EXI S 1884 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth Mar. 9, 2006, no pet.) (me m. op., not desig nated for publication) (a lleg ing both reporta

ble conviction and subse ction). This Court, albeit in a differ ent context, has stated the State is me rely require d to prove the defe nd ant 's "st atu s as a pers on wi th a repo rt abl e con vi cti on ." Mo or e v . S tate , 38 S.W .3d 232, 235 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. ref' d). Mo or e involved whether the curr ent version or the prior version of the sex-offende r re g istration statute applied. Id . Ex tending the re asoning of Mo or e , the S tat e wa s n ot r e qu ir e d to a lle g e wh ic h s ub se c tio n a pp lie d b e c a

us e on ly the de fe nd ant' s st a tus a s a sex offender

is an element of

the cr ime. The a lleg ation of a r eporta ble conviction would be suf ficient to alleg e the de fenda

nt's status a s a sex offende r. We c on c lud e that th e va

ri ou s su bs e c tio ns of

Ar tic le 62 .1 01 are no t e le me nts of the of fe ns e of fa ilure to reg ister. The notice of the re portable c onvictio n p ro vides sufficie nt notice to the

acc used. Any

g iven re portable c onviction give s rise to a duty under only one of the subsections of Article 62.101. O nce the State alleg es a r eporta ble conviction, th e d eter mination of which

s u b s ec t i o no f A rt i cl e 6 2

. 1 0 1 ap p l i e s i s p u re l y a q u es t i o no f l aw . I ti s u n d i s p u t edt h at M an t o o t h 's previous convic ti o n was for a sexual offe nse which oc curr ed af ter he turned e ighte en y ear s old. On c e the un de rl y ingre po rt a ble con vic tio n is a lle g e d, the du ty to r e g ist e r c an b e de te rm ine d a s a12

matter of la

w. The essential element of the offe nse is the defe ndant' s "status a s a sex offende r" by virtue of a

repor table convic tion. As such, only the re portable c onvicti o n m u s t be alleg ed in the indictment. The applica ble subsection of A rticle 62.101 is not an integ ral pa rt of an e ssential element of

the offe nse. C. The Variance Is Im m ater ial Since we ha

ve conc luded the alleg ation is not an integ ral pa rt of an e ss en t i al el em ent, the

ne xt ste p is to d e te rm in e whe th er th e va ri anc e is m a te ri a l. Ava ri anc e oc c ur s w he n th e re is a discrepa ncy betwee n the allegations in the charg ing instrument and the proof at trial. In re S. C. , 229 S.W. 3d 83 7, 84 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 20 07 , p e t. d e nie d) . " Th e wi de ly -a c c e pte d r ule , r e g ard le ss of wh e the r v ie wi ngva

ri anc e a s a su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e pr ob le m or as a no tic e -r e late d p ro ble m, is th at a vari ance t hat is no t p rej ud ici al t o a d efen da n t 's 'sub st ant ial ri ghts ' is i mm ate ri al. " Hart v. Sta te , 1 7 3 S

. W

. 3 d 1 3 1 , 1 4 4 (T ex . Ap p . — T ex ark an a 20 0 5 , n o p et

. ) ( qu o t i n g Gollihar , 46 S.W .3d at 2 4 7

– 4 8 ; an d

re fe re n ci n g Ro

jas v . S tate , 986 S.W

. 2 d 2 4 1 , 2 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)). When deter mining whe ther a

defe ndant' s "substantial rig hts" ha ve been prejudice d, we must consider two qu e sti on s: 1 ) wh e the r the ind ic tme nt, a s wr itt e n, inf or me d th e de fe nd ant o f t

he c ha rg e a g a ins t hi m

or h e r s u f f ic ie n tl y to a ll o w s u c h d e f e n d an t to p r e p ar e an a d e qu a te d e f e n s e a t tr ia l, an d

2) whe ther prosec ution unde r the defic iently draf ted indictment would subject the de fenda nt to the risk of being prosec uted later

for the sa me cr ime. Se e S. C. , 2 29 S.W. 3d a t 84 1; Br own v . S

tate , 159 S.W .3d 703, 709 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, pet. re f' d).13

Although the State alleg ed a d u t y to reg ister under

Article 62.101( b) (ten- y ear repor ting require ment), the e vidence established Mantooth had a duty to r egi s t er as a sex offende r under Article 62.101(a) (lifetime repor ting require ment). Thus, there is a varia nce betwee n the indictment

and the e vid e nc e a t tr ia l. Ho we ve r, the re is no e vid e nc e that th e va ri anc e fa ile d to pe rm it M anto oth to prepa re a n ad equate defe nse at trial. It is uncontested that no one notice d the State alleg ed the wrongsubsection until the punishment portion of the trial. Mantoot h p re p are d for tria l with the und e r s ta n d in g h e w a s b e in g c h ar g e d w it h v io lati n g a

li f e ti me d u ty to r e g is te r . F u rth e r , the enhanc ement par ag raph in the indictment alleg ed that Mantooth had previously been c onvicted for violating his lifetime duty to r eg ister. Nor is the re any risk that Mantooth would be subjecte d to the risk of beingprosec uted a second tim e for the same c rime. The va

rianc e is immaterial and, the ref ore, does not nee d to be included in the hy pothetically

corr ect jury

char g e. D. The Evi de nc e Is L e ga llyand F ac tu all y Suffic ie nt Be cause the hy

pothetically corr ect jury char g e does not have to conta in the State' s alleg ation that Ma nto oth h ad a du ty

to r e g ist e r u

nd e r A rt ic le 62 .1 01 (b ), the e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly

su ff ic ie nt. Th e hy

po the tic a lly

c or re c t jury c ha rg e wo uld on ly re qu ir e the jur

y to f ind that Ma nto oth had the r eporta

ble conviction alleg ed by the State. I n revie wing the leg al suffic iency of the e vidence , we view al l o f t h e evidence in the lig ht most favora

ble to the verdic t a

nd deter mine whether

any rational trier

of fa ct could have found the essential ele ments of the cr ime bey ond a rea sonable doubt. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 2 3 S. W. 3 d

1 , 7 ( T e x.14

Crim. App. 2000). I n a fa ctual suff iciency revie w, we r eview a ll the evidence , but do so in a neutra l light and de termine whe ther the e vidence supporting the verdic t is so weak or is so outweig hed by the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e that the jury ' s verdict is cle arly wrongor manifestly

unjust. Lan c on v . S

tate , 253 S.W .3d 699, 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). The State proved t he reportable conviction alleg ed and pr oved Mantooth' s failure to notify the State of his c hang ed residenc e and chang ed employ ment status. The State introduce d a copy of the judg ment finding Mantooth guilty of attempted se x ual as s au lt of a child as a lleg ed in the ind ic tme nt. Manto oth te sti fi e d he wa s th e pe rs on " that w a s c on vic te d o f a

tte mpt e d s e xua l a ssa

ult of a c hil d b a c k in

19 91 ." Whe n la st r e le a se d f ro m pr iso n, Manto oth

lis te d h is a dd

re ss a s 1 54 South First Stree t, Deport, Te x as. Mantooth informed the police that he w as working as a se lf-employ ed mecha nic out of hi s house. Deputy Travis Rhodes, a deputy with the L amar County Sheriff' s Offic e, testified he informed Ma

ntooth of his duty

to report a

chang e of r esidenc e and e mploy ment. A copy of Manto oth ' s p re -r e le a se no tif ic a tio n f or m e xpla ini nghis du ty

to r e g ist er was int

ro du c e d in to evidenc e. After rec eiving information t hat M antooth may have c hang ed his reside nce, Rhode s visited 154 South First Street and discove red the re w as no ele ctricity and the tele phone ser

vice ha d been dis c onne c te d. Th e re fr ig e rator do or wa s st and ingop e n, and

the ho us e wa s " [p]r e tty

muc h a n e mpt y ho us e ." Se ve ra l pa

rt ia lly fi lle d b oxe s w e re in t

he ho us e lik e so me on e wa s mo vin g ou t. T he g ra ss

wa s h ig h, and

the re we re no ve hic le s aro un d th e ho us e that w ou ld b e c onsi st ent wit h M anto oth15

running a mec hanic business fr om the home. Rhodes discover ed duringhis in v es t i g ation that Mantooth had bee n working at the B lackland Pra irie Gin for sever al wee ks and had move d his shop to a building on Ma in Street sever al mo n ths earlier . Nanc y Grissom, vice pre sident and sec reta ry of B lackland Pra irie Gin, testified Mantooth had be en em ploy ed by the company . Be cause the majority of Mantooth' s possessions were located in a rec reational vehicle pa

rked at t h e shop bu ild ing , Rh od e s c on c lud e d M anto oth wa s li vin g in t

he re c re a tio na l ve hic le . Ph oto g ra ph s o f b oth the 154 South First Street residence and the rec reational vehicle were introduced into evide nce. A rational juror could have conclude d Mantooth was guilty bey ond a re asonable doubt. The evide nce is l e g a lly su ff ic ie nt. At trial, Mantooth testi fi ed h i s son was moving out of the house whe n Rhodes visited. Acc ording to Mantooth, he still lived at the house located a t 154 South First St ree t and the per sonal ite ms i n th e re c re a tio na l ve hi cle were me re ly sto re d th e re . M anto oth

a dmi tte d w or

kin g a t th e g in

an d m o v i n g t h e sh o p . T h e ju ry wa s en t i t l edt o b el i ev e t h e S t at e's v er s i o no f e v en t s o v er M an t o o t h 's testimony . The c ontrary

evidenc e is not so strong that the jury ' s verdict is so ag ainst the g reat weig ht

and pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e that it

is c le arl y wr on g o r manif

e stl y un jus t. T he e vid e nc e is fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt. The e vidence is le g ally and fac tually sufficie nt to prove Mantooth committed the offe nse of failure to comply with se x -off ender reg istration r equire ments. The re portable c onviction cre ated aMantooth argues in his fifth point of error that the conviction under Article 62.101(b) was 6 improperly

enhanc ed to a third de g ree felony . I n his last point of er ro r, M an t o oth argues the trial court erre d in sentenc ing him to eig ht y ear s for a state j ail felony

. Be cause Mantooth was convic ted of vio la tin g a

lif e tim e du ty

—a thi rd de g re e fe lony

—M anto oth ' s r e ma ini ngargume nts are moo t. Mantooth was convicted of a third deg ree felony , and an e ight- y ear sentenc e is within the statutory r an g e f o r a t h i r d d e g r e e f e l o n y. 16 duty under A rticle 62.101(a ) which made the offe nse a third de g ree felony . Be cause Mantooth was

a c tua lly c on vic te d und e r A rt ic le 62 .1 01 (a ), Ma nto oth ' s r e ma ini ngpo int s o f e rr or are moo t. 6 III. Conclusion Any e rr or in t he ind ic tme nt i s n ot f

un dame nta l e rr or . Al tho ug h th e State a lle g e d a du ty to reg ister under

Article 62.101( b), the evidenc e esta blished Mantooth had a duty to reg ister as a

sex of fe nd e r u nd e r A rt ic le 62 .1 01 (a ). Th e hy po the tic a lly c or

re c t jur y c ha rg e wa s n ot r e qu ir e d to c on ta in the alleg ation that Mantooth had a duty under A rticle 62.101(b) since the a lleg ati o n wa s n o t an i n t egr al p ar to f a nes s en t i al el em en to r a ma t er i al v ar i an ce . T h e hy p o t h et i ca l l y

co rr ec tj u ry

ch ar ge

wa s o nly re qu ir e d to c on ta in t

he a lle g e d r e po rt a

ble c on vic tio n. Th e State pr ov e d th e re po rt a ble conviction it alleg ed and pr oved Mantooth's fa i l u re to report a chang e of r esidenc e and c hang e of employ ment. As such, the State pr oved Mantooth committed a third deg ree felony when he failed to report his cha

ng e of r esidenc e and chang e of employ ment. Be cause Mantooth was convicted of a third deg ree felony , Mantooth' s fifth and sixt h points of error are moot.17

F or the re a so ns state d, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: Aug ust 13, 2008 Date D ecide d: September 30, 2008 Pub lis h