appellant,on or aboutMarch
convictionfor indecencywith a child 14,2013,as a personwith a
and subject to the Texas Sex Offender RegistrationProgram, and while
intendingto changehis residentialaddress,intentionally and knowingly
failed to timely provide in personthe defendant'santicipatedmove date and
by failing to provide said new addressto the Houston Police Department,,
infbrmation in personat least sevendays before the defendant'schangeof
address.(CR 6); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 62.055(a)and 62.102. As
chargedin this case,a personacts intentionally,or with intent,with respectto
the natureof his conductor to a resultof his conductwhen it is his conscious
objectiveor desireto engagein the conductor causethe result.(CR 78); Tex.
Pen.Code $6.03(a).Also, a personactsknowingly,or with knowledge,with
respectto the nature of his conduct or to circumstancessulrounding his
conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the
exist.A personactsknowingly,or with knowledge,with respect circumstances
to a result of his conductwhen tre is aware that his conduct is reasonably
ceftainto causethe result.(CR 78); Tex. Pen.Code$6.03(b). The Jacksonv. Virginia legal-sufficiencystandardis the only standard
that a reviewing court should appty in determiningwhetherthe evidenceis
sulficient to support each element of a criminal offense that the State is
doubt. Brooltsv. State,323 S.W.3d requiredto prove beyonda reasorLable
Virginia,443U.S.307,99S. Ct. 893,895(Tex.Crim.App.2010);.tacksonv.
2781,61L. Ed.2d 560,(1979). Llnderthisstandard, evidenceis insufficient
all the recordevidencein the light most to supporta convictionif,,considerirng
favorableto the verdict, no rational factfinder could have found that each
essentialelement of the chargedoffense was proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. Jacksonv. State,443u.S. at319,99 S. Ct. at 2789;In re lrinship,397
u . s . 3 5 8 , 3 6 1 , 9 0S . C t . 1 0 6 8 1, 0 7 1 , 2 5 L . 8 d . 2 d3 6 8( 1 9 7 0 )L; a s t e r vS. t a t e ,
275 S.W.3d512,517(Tex.Crim. App. 2009);Williamsv. State,235S.W.3d
742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).Viewed in a light favorableto the verdict,
the evidenceis insufficientwheneither:(1) the recordcontainsno evidence,or
merelya "modicum"of evidence,probativeof an elementof the offense;or
doubt.Lasterv. State, a reasonable (2) the evidenceconclusivelyestablishes
275 S.W.3d at 518. This standardapplies equally to both direct and
evidence. circumstantial S.W.2d701,703 (Tex.Crim.App. King v. St,zte,895
1995);Ervin v. State,331 S.W.3d 49, 55 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
2010,pet.refd).
l0 In this case, there is no dispute conceming whether appellantwas
requiredto registeras a sex offender.The only issue is whether the State
proved,beyonda reasonabledoubt,that appellantintentionallyor knowingly
failedto registerhis intendedaddresschange,as chargedin the indictment.See
Greenv. Stctte,350S.W.3d617 ('Iex. App.-Houston Ilst Dist.] 2010,pet.
ref'd);Reyesv. State,96 S.W.3d603,605 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
2002,pet. refd) (statingthat a culltablementalstateis requiredfbr failure to
registerviolations).The Court of ,{ppealsrelianceon Robinsonv. State,No.
WL 4068109(-fex.Crim. App. July 1, 2015)in affirming PD-0421-14,2015
the convictionis in error sincethe indictmentin appellant'scaseallegedthat
Febus"while intending to changehis residentialaddress,intentionally and
move anticipated knowingly failedto timely providein personthe defendant's
dateand new addressto the HoustonPolice Department."(CR 6). Therefore,
this caseis distinguishablefrom Robinsonv. Statesincethe Statewas required
to prove that Febushad a culpablemental statewhen failing to provide the
comect addresssince it was an element charged in the indictment that
specifically modifled appellant's failure to act. Id. Thus, the holding in
Robinsonis not dispositiveof this qase.
The evidenceat trial