Court Opinion

ID: 9366589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 09:10:00.462481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:53.750591
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-22-00116-CR

WILLIAM RAY RUST,
                                                            Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                                            Appellee

                           From the 278th District Court
                              Walker County, Texas
                              Trial Court No. 29289

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

       A jury found William Ray Rust guilty of the felony offense of failure to register as

a sex offender. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. arts. 62.055(a); 62.102(a), (b)(2). Specifically,

Rust was charged with and convicted of failing to report an intended change of address

within seven days of the intended change. Id. The trial court sentenced Rust to four years

in prison. Because the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, the trial court’s

judgment is affirmed.
        SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

        Rust represented himself, with standby counsel, at trial. He is represented by

counsel on appeal. In one issue on appeal, Rust contends the evidence is insufficient to

support his conviction because the State did not prove, with direct evidence, that Rust

intended to change his address.

        Standard of Review

        The Court of Criminal Appeals has expressed our standard of review of a

sufficiency issue as follows:

                When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we
        consider whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most
        favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the
        essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.
        Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); Villa v.
        State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). This standard requires
        the appellate court to defer "to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to
        resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw
        reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts." Jackson, 443 U.S. at
        319. We may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that
        of the factfinder. Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App.
        2007). The court conducting a sufficiency review must not engage in a
        "divide and conquer" strategy but must consider the cumulative force of all
        the evidence. Villa, 514 S.W.3d at 232. Although juries may not speculate
        about the meaning of facts or evidence, juries are permitted to draw any
        reasonable inferences from the facts so long as each inference is supported
        by the evidence presented at trial. Cary v. State, 507 S.W.3d 750, 757 (Tex.
        Crim. App. 2016) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319); see also Hooper v. State, 214
        S.W.3d 9, 16-17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We presume that the factfinder
        resolved any conflicting inferences from the evidence in favor of the verdict,
        and we defer to that resolution. Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex.
        Crim. App. 2012). This is because the jurors are the exclusive judges of the
        facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to the
        testimony. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
        Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are equally probative, and
        circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to uphold a conviction so
        long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is

Rust v. State                                                                                Page 2
        sufficient to support the conviction. Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809
        (Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.

               We measure whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient
        to support a conviction by comparing it to "the elements of the offense as
        defined by the hypothetically correct jury charge for the case." Malik v.
        State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The hypothetically
        correct jury charge is one that "accurately sets out the law, is authorized by
        the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State's burden of proof
        or unnecessarily restrict the State's theories of liability, and adequately
        describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried." Id.; see
        also Daugherty v. State, 387 S.W.3d 654, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The "law
        as authorized by the indictment" includes the statutory elements of the
        offense and those elements as modified by the indictment. Daugherty, 387
        S.W.3d at 665.

Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732-33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).

        Offense

        Pursuant to article 62.055(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a person who is

required to register as a sex offender and who intends to change addresses, must, not

later than the seventh day before the intended change, report in person to the local law

enforcement authority designated as the person’s primary registration authority and

provide the authority and the officer with the person’s anticipated move date and new

address. Id. art. 62.055(a).   A person commits an offense if the person fails to timely

report the intended change in address. See id. art. 62.102.

        Evidence

        Rust was registered to live at a certain address in Huntsville, Texas. In May of

2019, Rust wanted to be de-registered from the sex offender registry and became

confrontational with the sex offender registration clerk when she told Rust that she could

not help him de-register.

Rust v. State                                                                            Page 3
        An apartment complex owner from Loveland, Colorado noticed Rust coming and

going at the complex for a couple of days.        On about October 7, 2019, he had a

conversation with Rust, informing him that if he was going to stay more than a week and

a half or two weeks, Rust would have to put down a deposit. Rust told the owner he had

only been there a few days.

        The owner later learned from a tenant that Rust had some “issues” in Texas and

would not be able to stay long. The tenant was concerned enough about the “issues”

Rust had that the tenant thought the owner should talk to the police about Rust. The

owner saw Rust two or three more times and estimated that Rust was at the complex for

a week and a half from the time the owner called the police to the time Rust left.

        On October 7, 2019, a detective from the Loveland Police Department in Colorado

called the registration authority in Huntsville to report he had received a tip that Rust

was living in Loveland. The detective had learned from the apartment complex owner

that Rust was a registered sex offender and had “issues” in Texas. The detective also

learned that the Loveland Police Department had previously made contact with Rust in

September of 2019 at the same complex. Officers monitored this address to see whether

Rust was coming and going from the complex. The detective obtained information on

the car Rust was driving and learned Rust’s car had been seen numerous times.

Ultimately, the detective did not charge Rust with any offense because Rust left the area

by approximately October 14, 2019.

        As a result of the call from the detective, a Walker County Sheriff’s Deputy was

sent to Rust’s address to see if Rust was at the address. Rust was not at the address.

Rust v. State                                                                        Page 4
Rust’s alleged roommate was at the residence and told the deputy that Rust had lived

there but had left the residence on August 19, 2019. The deputy further testified that in a

written statement, the roommate said Rust left the residence on August 1, 2019. 1 The

registration clerk was never notified that Rust was moving residences.

        Rust testified that he had been in Colorado, but that Loveland was not the place

he intended to move. He wanted to move to Fort Collins, Colorado. He did not notify

anyone of his intent to move.

        Application

        The State alleged Rust failed to report in person and provide to the Walker County

Sheriff’s Office an intended change of his address within seven days of the intended

change. The evidence showed that Rust had left his residence by August 19, 2019, at the

latest. He was in Loveland, Colorado in September and October of 2019. He wanted to

move to Fort Collins, Colorado, and did not notify anyone of his intent to move.

CONCLUSION

        The jury is the sole judge of the credibility and weight to be attached thereto,

including whether to believe all of a witnesses' testimony, portions of it, or none of it.

Thomas v. State, 444 S.W.3d 4, 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Further, direct evidence and

circumstantial evidence are equally probative, and circumstantial evidence alone may be

sufficient to uphold a conviction. Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Tex. Crim. App.

1
  Rust did not object to the testimony from the deputy regarding what the roommate said or what the
roommate had written. A trier of fact is entitled to give probative value to "inadmissible hearsay admitted
without objection." TEX. R. EVID. 802; Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Rust v. State                                                                                       Page 5
2015). Thus, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict,

we find the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.

        Rust’s sole issue is overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                           TOM GRAY
                                           Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed January 25, 2023
Do not publish
[CR25]

Rust v. State                                                                         Page 6