### 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- 09 -0 00 62 -C R

______________________________ ARCHI E EARLSI MPKI NS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appea l from the 124th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 37395-B

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 MoseleySimpki ns was convicted on April 29, 2004, of ag g ravated sexual assault. Be cause Simpki ns 1 wa s a juv e n il e a t th e ti me o f h is c o n v ic ti o n , h e s e r v e d h is s e n te n c e o f tw e n ty

- f o u r months at the Crockett State School, Texas Youth Commi ssion. T h i s i n fo rm at i o nwa s u n co v er edb y C h ri s M i l l er , a c ri m i n al i n v e s t i g a t o r w i t h t h e G re gg 2 County Sheriff' s Depa

rtment, when Miller was investigating Simpki ns for an extraneous offe nse. 2 O P I N I O N I. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL HISTORY Ar c hie Ea

rl Simp kin s w a s a

c on vic te d s e x off

end er who res ide d, up on re le a se , w ithhis 1 g ra nd pa re nts a t 17 70 Re dm on

Roa d in L on g vie w, Ha

rr iso n Co un ty , T e xas, and wa s r e qu ir e d to reg ister his status as a sex offe nder w ith the Harr ison County Sheriff' s Depa

rtment. Simpki ns regis t er ed o n Dec ember

5, 2006, and wa s require d to reg ister on an a nnual basis there afte r for a period of ten y ear s. Simpki ns failed to reg ister i n 2007, and nex t reg istered on Aug ust 15, 2008, as continuing to live at the same a ddress in Ha rrison County

. As o f A u gu s t 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 , S i mp k i n s h ad b ee n l i v i n g at 3 4 9 Ga m el L an e i n L o n gv i ew , Gr egg County , Texas, for a pe riod of thre e wee ks. Simpki ns resided at this a ddress with Trac i Eliff, the 2 mot he r o f t wo min or c hil dr e n. On No ve mbe r 20, 20 08 , Si mpk ins wa s c ha rg e d b y ind ic tme nt w ith the offe nse of f

ailure to re g ister as a

sex offender

in Greg g County

. Whil e S impkins filed a reque st for jury trial on Dec ember 4, 2008, there is an entry on the trial court' s docket that both sides pre sented for a benc h trial on M ar ch 1 7 , 2009. Upon

commence ment of trial, and a fter ha ving a scer

tai n ed t h at the proc eedingwould be bifurc ated, counsel for

Simpki ns stated, " That' s all Ineed to know. We'r e re ady ." Judgme nt of conviction byT EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . arts. 62.101(b) , (c) , 62.102(b)( 1) (Ve rnon 2006) ( defining 3 offe nse as state jail f

elony if actor

is person whose duty

to reg ister expires under A rticle 62.101(b) or (c )). 3 the tr ia l c ourt

wa s e nte re d on the same date and punis hme nt wa s a sse sse d a t tw o y e ars in t he State J ail Division, Tex as De partment of Criminal Just ice. The judg ment rec ites that "[B]oth parties 3

announce d rea dy

for tria l. Def

endant waived the rig ht of trial by jury and enter ed the plea indicated above." II. ISS UES PRESENTED (1) Whether the e vidence was leg ally sufficie nt to support the conviction; (2) Whether the e vidence was fa ctually sufficie nt to support the conviction; and (3 ) Whe the r t

he a bs e nc e of a va lid wr itt e n w a ive r o f j ur

y tr ia l r e qu ir e s r e ve rs a l. III . AN AL YSI S A. Legal and F actual Suf fi ciency Simpki ns contends that the ev i d ence is leg ally and fa ctually

insufficient. We pre fac e our analy sis with the g ener al rule that a person commits the offense of f ailure to c omply

with reg istration require ments if the pers o n "is re quired to re g ister and f ails 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)

. Whether one is re quired to re port for his lifetime or only for a period of y ear s, the repor ting require ments during the rele vant per iod are the same. Ma nto oth v . S tat e , 2 6 9 S. W. 3 d

6 8 , 7 2 ( T e x. Ap p. —T e xar

ka na 20 08 , no pe t.)

. A pe rs on fa ils to c omp ly wi th re g ist ratio n re qu ir e me nts if

he fa ilsArticle 62.051 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure de fines the location of reg istration: 4 (a ) A pe rs o nw h o h a s a r e p o rt a b l e c o n v i c t i o no r

a d j u d i c a t i o no r

w h o is require d to reg ister as a

condition o f p ar o l e, rele ase to mandatory supervision, or community

superv i s i o n s h all reg ister or, if the pe rson is a per son for whom reg is tr a ti o n is c o mp le te d u n d e r th is c h a p te r , v e r if

y r e g is tr a ti o n a s p r o vided by Subsection (f), w ith the local law enfor ceme nt a uthority in a

ny municipality

wher e the per son resides or intends to reside for more than se ven day s. I f the pe rson does not reside or

intend to reside in a municipa lity , the per son shall re gi s t er or verify reg istration in any county wher e the pe rson re sides or intends to reside f or more tha

n se ve n d ay s. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 62.051(a ) (Ve rnon Supp. 2009). 4 to g ive s e v e nd ay s ' n o t i c e o f i n t e n tt o c h an g e a d dr e s s e s , f a i l s t o r e p o rta

c h an g e o f

a d dr e s s wi thi n seven da y s, or fa ils to report a c hang e in employ ment status wi t h i n s ev en d ay s. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art s. 62 .0 55 , 6 2. 05 7( b) (Vern on Sup p. 20 09 ), art . 6 2. 10 2. He re , Si mpk ins is

a lle g e d to have fa ile d to re po rt a c ha ng e of a dd re ss w ith in s e ve n d ay s. 4 I n r e v ie w in g th e le g a l s u f f ic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e , w e v ie w a ll o f th e e v id e n c e in the lig ht most favora

ble to the ver dict to deter m i n e wh et h er any rational trier

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

tat e , 2 3 S. W. 3 d 1 , 7 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Las te r v . S tat e , 275 S.W .3d 512, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). I n a fa ctual suff

iciency revie w, we revie w all the evidenc e, but do so in a neutra l light and deter mine whether the evidenc e supporting the verdic t is too weak to support the fa ct-finde r' s verdict

or is s o o utw e ig he d b y the g re a t w e ig ht a nd pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e that th e jur

y ' s v e rd ic t is5

clea rly wrongor manife stly

unjust. Lan c on v . S

tat e , 253 S.W .3d 699, 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Ro be rts v . S

tat e , 220 S.W .3d 521, 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). I n this analy sis, we use a hy pothetically -cor

rec t jury char g e to evaluate both the leg al and fac tual sufficie ncy

of the e vidence

. Gr ott i v . S tat e , 273 S.W .3d 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Such

a c ha rg e a c c ur a te ly

se ts ou t the law, is a

uth or ize d by

the ind ic tme nt, do e s n ot u nn e c e ssa ri ly inc re a se the Sta te ' s b ur de n o f p ro of or un ne c e ssa

ri ly re str ic t th e State ' s th e or ie s o f lia bil ity , an d a de qu a te ly descr ibes the par

ticular off ense f or which the defe ndant was trie d. Vi lla rre al v . S tat e , 286 S.W .3d 32 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 09 ); Ma lik v . S tat e , 953 S.W .2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Even though no jur

y char g e wa s g iven, we ne v er t heless employ this analy sis to determine the leg al and fac tual sufficie ncy of the e vidence

. Ma lik, 953 S.W .2d at 240 (the Malik test applies to nonjury or bench tr ials). 1. The Indi c tm e nt Th e ind ic tme nt s ta te s, in p e rt ine nt p art , th a t: [O]n o r a bo ut t he 21 st d ay

of Au g us t, 20 08 , and ante ri or to the pr e se ntm e nt o f t his I nd ic tme nt , in the County and State a fo re sa id, AR CH I E E AR LSI MPK I NS, he re ina ft e r c a lle d D e fe nd ant, did the n a nd the re , w hil e be inga

pe rs on re qu ir e d to reg ister with the local law enfor ceme nt a uthority in the county

wher e the de fenda

nt r e s i d e d o r i n t e n d e d t o r e s i d e f

o r m o r e t h a n s e v e nd ays , t o - w i t : G r e g g C o u n t y, beca use of a repor table convic t i o n fo r Ag g ravated Sexual Assault, int entionally or kn o w i n g l y f

a i l t o r e g i s t e r

w i t h t h e l o c a l l aw e n f

o r c e m e n ta

u t h o r i t y i n

s a i d c o u n t y. I n making an ana ly sis under t h e h y p o t hetically -cor

rec t jury char g e, we find that the indictment require d the State to prove that: 1) Archie Earl Simpkins, 2) on or about August 21,6

2008, 3) in Gre g g County , Texas, 4) was a per son require d to reg ister with the local law enfor ceme nt

a uth or ity in t he c ounty , 5) wh e re Simp kin s re sid e d or int e nd e d to re sid e fo r mor e tha n se ve n d a y s, 6) bec ause of

a re p o rt ab l e conviction for se x ual assault. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt

. 6 2

. 0 5 1 (a ). Du e t o t h e m u l t i p l i ci t y o f r egi s t ra t i o nen t i t i e s ( d e p e n d i n g o nt h e s i tu s o f S i mp k i n s 's residenc e or intende d residenc e), the State also had to p ro v e t h e ele ments which established the identity of the law enfor ceme nt e ntity with w hich he was require d to reg ister. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 62.001(2) (Ve rnon Supp. 2009). The c rux of Si mpkins's cha lleng e to the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e ce nters upon the f act that the statute which prescr ibes the age ncy with whom reg istration as a sex offe nder g ives alternative place s, dependingon whether the proposed r eg istrant lives inside a municipality or outside a municipality . I f a pe rson lives within a municipality , the offe nder is to reg ister " with the local law enfor ceme nt authority

in any municipality

wher e the person resides or intends to r eside for more than seven da y s," but if that r esidenc e or intended re sidence is not withi n a municipality , then " the per son sh all regis ter

or v eri fy regis tr at i o n i n any

cou nt y ." T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 62.051 (Ve rnon Supp. 2009). " ' L ocal law enfor ceme nt authority ' means, a s applicable , the chief of police of a m un ici pal it y , t he s heri ff o f a co un ty in th is st ate , o r a cent ral iz ed re gist rat io n au th ori ty ." T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 62.001(2)

. Simpki ns challeng es the e vidence that he fa iled to reg ister with the entity with w hich he wa s require d to reg ister. Simply stated, Simpkins claims t he State' s evidenc e is insuff icient beca

use theEliff testified that she lived at 3 4 9 R edmon Road, L ot No. 2 in L ong view. All other 5 ref ere nces to Eliff' s addre ss were to 349 Gamel L ane, L ot No. 2. 7 State failed to prove that Simpki ns' s residenc e wa s located in rur al Gre g g County and not within the

mun ic ipa lity of L on g vie w. Whil e the State did su ff ic ie ntl y pr ov e that Simp kin s fa ile d to re g ist e r i n Gre g g County , Simpki ns contends that evidenc e is not sufficie nt to support a convic tion due to the la c k o f e v id e n c e a s to th e a c tu a l l o c a ti o no f Si mp k in s ' s r e s id e n c e . I no th e r w o r d s , Si mp k ins contends that it was the affir mative obliga

tion of the State to show that Simpki ns did not reside within a municipality

beca use if he r esided within a municipality , there would be an e ntity other than the Gre g g County

Sheriff w ith whom he would be oblig ated to re g ister. 2. The Evid ence Upon his initi al re lease , Simpki ns resided with his gra ndfathe r in neig hboring Har rison County . After

having been a sked to leave his gr andfather' s house in Har ri s o n County , Simpki ns stay ed at the home of Eliff for two or three wee ks, paying r ent i n the amount of $100.00 pe r we ek. 5 Miller testified that Simpkins signe d a stateme nt during Miller' s investigation of an extraneous offe nse. That state ment repr esente d that Simpki ns was re siding at 349 Gamel Lane, L ot No. 2, L ong view, Gr eg g County , Texas. On Miller' s review of the sex-offe nder r eg i s t ration records of Gre g g County , he dis cover ed that Simpki ns had not reg istered with the Gr eg g County Sheriff. The State offe red e vidence that Simpki ns resided or intended to re s i d e at 3 4 9 Gamel L ane, L ot No. 2, L ong view, Gr eg g County , Texas, for more than seve n day s.I n other matters, the Gre g g County Sheriff' s Depa rtment has jurisdiction within the portion 6 of the City of L on g vie w s itu a te d in

Gr e g g County

a s w e ll. 8 Miller te s ti f

ie d th a t a s a g e n e r a l r

u le , s e x- o f

f e n d e r r e g is tr a ti o n f

o r a p e r s o n r e s id in g in the unincorporated are as of Gre g g County is w ith the Gre g g County Sheriff' s Depa rtment. Ho we v er, if the re g istration involves a person living within the Cit y of L ong view, the r equire d sex -off ender reg istration entity

is the City

of L ong view (i.e., the L ong view Police De partment). T his testimony

6 reg ardingthe locale of sex-offe nder r eg istration d o v et ails with the statutory require ment as mentioned above . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . arts. 62.051, 62.001(2)

. Due to the diff

ere nces be tween the place s a per son is required to r eg ister, depe nding upon the location of the reg istrant' s residenc e, ther e must be proof (in addition to that which showe d that Simpki ns did not reg ister with the Greg g County Sheriff) , that 349 Gamel L ane w as located in rura l Gre g g County

and not w ithin the municipality of the City of L ong view. Abse nt such evidenc e, ther e is no proof that he f

ailed to re g ister wher e he w as re quired to re g ister. Th e te sti mony

in thi s re g ard is that pa

rt of Ga me l L ane is loc a te d in the mun ic ipa l c ity lim its of L ong view, Te x as, and pa rt of Gamel L ane is located outside of the Cit y o f L o n gview, in rura l Gre g g County . Courtney Walker, an e mploy ee of th e Gr egg County

District Attorney ' s Offic e, te sti fi e d th a t sh e ha s n o p e rs on a l kn ow le dg e a s to wh ic h p art of Ga me l L ane is w ith in t

he c ity lim its of L ong view and w hich par t is not. W alker

could not aff

irm whether

349 Gamel L an e is situated

o u t s i d e th e ci t y l i m i t s o f L o n gv i ew . Al t h o u gh W al k er at t em p t edt o t es t i fy

t h at s h e v er i fi edt h ro u gh9

dispatch that the Ga

mel L ane a ddress was in the county , this testim ony was c ut short as hea

rsay and was not fully

develope d. Although Miller testified that 349 Gamel L ane is loc ated in Gr eg g County , he later conce ded that h e wa s n o t certain that this residence is not withi n the city limit s of L ong view. Miller neve r

ac tu al l y we n tt o t h e h o u s e a n d

al t h o u gh h e b el i ev edi tt o b e i n an u n i n co rp o ra t ed p o rt i o n o f G re gg County , he could not attest to that with ce rtainty

. Consist ent with the Four

teenth Amendme nt's gua

rante e of due process of law, a de fenda nt may not be convicte d and depr ived of his liberty except upon proof be y ond a re asonable doubt. In

re W ins hip , 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). I n assessing the leg al suffic iency of the e vidence to support

a c on vic tio n, we mus t c on sid e r a ll o f t he re c or d e vid e nc e in t

he lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to t he ve rd ic t. Even view ing the evidenc e in a lig ht most favorable to the verdic t, we find t h at a cr i t i ca l and

ne c e ssa ry e le me nt of the pr oo f is la c kin g : that Simp kin s' s re sid e nc e wa s in a locat io n t hat would require him to reg ister as a sex offender

with the Sheriff of

Gre g g County , Texas. Ra the r, the e vid e nc e sh ow e d tha t Simpk ins ' s re sid e nc e may have be e n w ith in t he c ity lim its of L ong view (in whic h case , Simpki ns would have had no obligation to reg ister wit h the Sheriff of Gre g g County

but would, instead, have been r equire d to reg ister wit h the L ong view Police Depa rtment). No witness wa s able to af firmatively

state that the re sidence was in an uninc orporated portion of Gre g g County

.10

On e m i gh ts ay

t h at an i n fe re n ce ca n b e dr aw n fr o m M i l l er 's t es t i m o n y t h at b ec au s e t h e G re gg County Sheriff' s Offic e norma lly investigates lack- o f- re gi s t ration cases only for a rea s outside the C ity of L ong view, this is some evidence that the 349 Game l L ane r esidenc e is not within the municipality

of L ong view. Howe ver, Miller a lso testifi ed t h at the sher iff' s depar tment has ju r is d ic ti o n w it

h in th e Ci ty o f L o n g v ie w a s w e ll a s o u ts id e it s b o un d a r ie s . T h is in f

e r e n c e is one based upon a

probability

or likelihood; it i s not based upon proof bey ond a reasonable doubt. The failure of proof here is not li ke the f ailure to prove venue ( which, in a c riminal case , need only be proven by a prepondera

nce of the evidence, T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 13.17 (V ernon 2005) ; Mu rp hy v . S

tat e , 112 S.W .3d 592, 604 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)). Rather, it is the failure of proof of

an esse ntial element of the case ag ainst Sim pkins. Gi ve n th e de art

h o f e vid e nc e on

thi s c ri tic a l e le me nt o f t

he State ' s c a se , we are c omp e lle d to

c on c lud e tha

t th e e vid e nc e is lega lly

ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

Simp kin s' s c on vic tio n. B e c a us e thi s finding is f

ully deter minative of this c ase, we do not c ontinue on to analy ze the rema ining points of

err or ra ised by

Simpki ns. We r e ve rs e the tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt a nd re nd e r a jud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: October 29, 2009 Date D ecide d: November 5, 2009 Pub lis h