Ford, Joseph Clyde ( 2015 )

PD-1677-15
PD-1677-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 12/29/2015 3:13:28 PM
Accepted 12/29/2015 4:09:19 PM
ABEL ACOSTA
CLERK
NO. PI).
NTHE
COURT OF CRIMNALAPPEALS OF TEXAS
JOSEPH FORI)
Appellant
v.
STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee
APPELLANT'S PETITION
FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Petition from the 19th Judicial District Court of Mclennan County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Number 20I3-1178-Cl and
Cause Nurnber 10-14-00335-CR
in the Tenth Court of Appeals of Texas
Chelsea Tijerina
State BarNo. 24076733
E-mail : attorneychelsea@gmail. com
Law Orrrcn oF SrMER &TnrnNs
December 29, 2015 3706 Bellmead Drive
Waco, Texas 76705
(2s4) 412-2300
(88 8) 3 17 -7 610-Facsimile
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Appellant, pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(a), provides the
following list of all parties to the trial court's judgment and the names and
addresses of all trial and appellate counsel.
Appellant: Joseph Clyde Ford
TDCJ # 01963106
Hutchins State Jail
1500 East Langdon Road
Dallas, Texas 75241
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ralph Strother
19th Judicial District Court Judge
Mclennan County Courthouse
501 Washington Avenue - Suite 303
Waco, Texas 76701
Telephone: 254-7 57 -5081
Trial Counsel for Appellant: Josh Tetens; Chelsea Tijerina
Simer, Tetens & Fanning
3706 Bellmead Drive
Waco, Texas 76705
Telephone : 25 4-4 12-23 00
Appellate Counsel for Appellant: Chelsea Tijerina
Simer, Tetens & Fanning
3706 Bellmead Drive
Waco, Texas 76705
Telephone : 254-412-2300
Trial Counsel for State: Amanda Dillon
Mclennan County District Attorney's Office
219 North 6th Street. Suite 200
Waco, Texas 76701
Appellate Counsel for State: SterHng Harmonl Gabriel Price
Mclennan County District Attorney's Office
219 North 6th Street, Suite 200
Waco, Texas 7670I
Ford v. State-Appsllanfs Petition for Discretionary Review Page I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. ........... 1
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...... 4
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT....... 5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE..... 5
ISSUE
The Tenth Court of Appeals erred in
finding the evidence legally sufficient............ ..................7
REASON FOR REVIEW
The Tenth Court of Appeals disregarded case law from this Court
and sister courts of appeal to find the evidence legally sufficient..................7
ARGUMENT. ..............8
I. Factual Basis. .................9
II. Case Law. ....10
III. Conclusion. .................14
PRAYER FOR RELIEF.. ..........15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.......... .......15
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .........16
Ford v. State-Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review Page 2
APPENDIX: Ford v. Stateo2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 11483 (Tex. App.-Waco
Novernber 5, 2015) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Texas Cases: Page No.
Dotiev. State,2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 10046
(Tex. App.-Texarkana September 25,2015). .......... ..........7,ll
Gilder v. State,469 S.w.3d636 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2015)...... ..7, Ll
Green v. State, 350 S.W.3d 617, 621-23
(Tex. App.-Houston ;14th Dist.l pet refd), overruledby
Thomas v. State,444 S.W.3d.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)...... ..................10
Thomas v. State,444 S.W.3d 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)...... 7,10,ll,13,14
State Statutes: Page No.
Ford v. Shte-Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Rsview Page 4
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
TO THE HONORABLE ruDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
Appellant requests oral argument as it would benefit this Honorable Court.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a criminal case in which Joseph Ford was convicted of failure to
register as a sex offender (enhanced), a third degree felony enhanced to a second
degree felony. I In Cause Number 2013-1178-C1, Mr. Ford was indicted as
follows:
"JOSEPH CLYDE FORD, hereinafter called Defendant, on or about the
28th day of March, A.D. 2013 in fMcl,ennan County, Texas] did then and
there, being a person with a reportable conviction for and while required to
comply with the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration
Program Chapter 62, of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and having
a duty to veriSr registration annually for Life with the local law enforcement
authority and having a duty to report change of address with the local law
enforcement authority, namely the Waco Police Department, the law
enforcement authority where the Defendant had last registered, did
intentionally and knowingly and recklessly fail to report, in person, to the
above named law enforcement authority and provide the Defendant's
anticipated move date and new address as required by the Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure, Article 62.055, not later than the seventh day before the
intended change."z
The State further alleged the following in an enhancement allegation:
"[P]rior to the commission of the primary offense, on the 22nd day of
I
(I C.R. at 128-129).
(I C.R. at6-7).
Ford v. State-Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review Page 5
December,2011, in the 19th District Court of Mclennan County, Texas, in
cause Number 2008-190-c1, the said JOSEPH cLyDE FORD was
convicted of a felony, to-wit: Failure to Comply with Sex Offender
Regishation (Enhanced), and the said conviction became final prior to the
commission of the primary offense."3
The case was tried to the Honorable Judge Ralph Strother on Septemb er 24,
2014 in the 19th District Court.o The honorable judge found Appellant guilty of
the offense of failure to register as a sex offender (enhanced).s Appellant pled true
to the enhancement allegation6 and the Court found that Appellant had been
previously convicted of failure to register as a sex offender (enhanced).7 Appellant
elected that the judge assess punishment and the judge sentenced Appellant to
twenty years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division.s
Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal on September 25,2014.' ott
appeal, the Tenth Court of Appeals found the evidence legally sufficient to
establish that Appellant failed to report a change in address ohot later than the
seventh day before the intended change" and denied Appellant's sole issue. r0
3 gc.n. at6-7).
o (Ic.R. at6-7).
' (I C.R. at 6-7).
I tt n.n. at24).
' (I C.R. at G7\
t (t c.R. at 6-7).
't0(t c.R. at 135).
Ford v. state,2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 11483, at *6 (Tex. App.-waco November 5, 2015)
(mem. op., not designated for publication); Trx. Cone Cruu. pRoc. art 62.055(a).
Ford u StatFAppellant's Petition for Discretionary Review Page 6
Thereafter, the Tenth Court denied Appellant's Motion for Rehearing on
December 2, 2015. Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review is due on or
before January 4, 2015.tr
ISSUE
The Tenth Court of Appeals erred in finding the evidence legally sufficient
to establish that Appellant failed to report a change in address not later than the
seventh day before the intended change.
REASONS FOR REVIEW
The Tenth Court of Appeals' decision in this case departs from this
Honorable Court's decision in Thomas v. Statu.t2 Furthermore. the Tenth Court of
Appeals' decision conflicts with decisions from sister courts of appeal.l3
t'The last day of the period to file Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review falls on Friday,
January 1,2016, a legal holiday; therefore, the period is extended to Monday, January 4,2016.
TBx. R. App. P.4.1.
t2 444 S.W.3d 4 (Tex.
Crim. App.20t4).
t3
Dotie v. State,20l5 Tex. App. LEXIS 10046 (Tex. App.-Texarkana September 25,2015);
Gilder v. State,469 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2015).
Ford v Sht€--Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Roview Page 7
ARGUMENT
To support its conviction for failure to register as a sex offender in this case,
the State was required to prove that Appellant (1) was required to register as a sex
offender under Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure but (2) failed
to comply with Article 62.055(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure by
failing to report a change of address "not later than the seventh day before the
intended change."la
The State failed to establish that Mr. Ford moved from the homeless shelter
at which he was registered to a different address. Rather, the State's change of
address evidence consisted solely of vague references to a 'tent city."
Additionally, the State failed to present any evidence that law enforcement ever
located Mr. Ford at his alleged new 'otent city" residence on any specific date.
Nonetheless, the Tenth Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence that Appellant
failed to report an intended change of address.
ta
Ford, at *4-5 (citing TBx. cooB cnrvr. Pnoc. art. 62.055(a). In Mr. Ford's case, the
indictment specified a statutory manner of means; therefore, the "law as authorized by the
indictment" allowed a conviction only if Mr. Ford "failed to report a change in address 'not later
than the seventh day before the intended change."
Ford v. State-Appellants Petition for Discretionary Roview Page I
Factual Basis
The Tenth Court of Appeals set forth the following facts in its opinion:
Betty Wilson, with the Waco Police Department, testified that Ford completed
a sex offender registration form January 25,2012. On that form, Ford listed his
residence as l2I7 Mury, Waco, Texas. That address is the location for a shelter,
My Brother's Keeper. On October 17,2012, Ford again registered his address
with the Waco Police Department as l2I7 Mary in Waco. Ford did not register
with the Waco Police Department after October 17,20L2. Wilson testified that
on March 28,20L3, she contacted My Brother's Keeper, and she was told that
Ford was no longer living there. Ford never informed Wilson that he was no
longer living at My Brother's Keeper.
Officer Richard Johnson, with the Waco Police Department, testified that on
March 31,2013, Betty wilson contacted him and asked him to go by My
Brother's Keeper to see if Ford was staying there. After learning that Ford was
not at My Brother's Keeper, Officer Johnson found Ford at another location.
Ford told Officer Johnson that he was no longer staying at My Brother's
Keeper because they were going to charge him money to stay there. Officer
Johnson testified that Ford told him he was staying at "tent city" over by the
Brazos River. Officer Johnson told Ford he needed to contact Betty Wilson for
registration.
Carlton Willis testified that he is the progrcm director for Mission Waco, which
runs My Brother's Keeper. Willis stated that a person staying at My Brother's
Keeper would have to sign-up daily to stay at My Brother's Keeper and is not
allowed to sign-up to stay multiple nights. An individual staying at My
Brother's Keeper is required to check-out each morning and to sign-in when
arriving at night. My Brother's Keeper maintains records detailing who stays at
the facility. Willis testified that My Brother's Keeper charges a nominal fee to
stay at the facility. If a person is unable to pay the fee, he will be assigned a
chore to cover the fee. Willis stated that Ford last stayed at My Brother's
Keeper on August 14, 2012. Willis testified that if an individual was sleeping
or staying outside of the building, he would be asked to leave.
Ford testified that he informed BetE Wilson that he was not staying inside the
building of My Brother's Keeper. He testified that he told her My Brother's
Ford v. State-Appsllanfs Pstition for Discretionary Review
Page 9
Keeper was charging him to stay there so he "may be there or around about
there." Ford further testified that he never told Officer Johnson he was staying
at'tent city."ls
il. Case Law
a. Evidence that a person is living at a dilferent address
on a speciJic date supports a conviction for faiting to
report un intended change of address.
The duty to notiff before moving is "triggered only [i]f a person required to
register under this chapter intends to change address."r6 As this Court held in
Thomas v. State, evidence that a person has moved into a new residence may
support a conviction for failing to report an intended change in address.lT
In Thomas, the defendant registered as a sex offender at 1900 South Green
Street but then gave the address of 1703 Houston Street to the county jail.r8 Law
enforcement located the defendant at the Houston Street address, and the
defendant told law enforcement he was living at the residence on Houston Street.le
This Honorable Court found the evidence legally sufficient to establish that the
Ford, at *34.
rs
16
Gre", v. state,350 s.w.3d 617,621-23 (Tex. App.-Houston [14ft Dist.] pet ref d),
overruledby Thomas v. State,444 S.W.3d. 4, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
t7 444 S.W.3d 4 (Tex.
Crim. App.20L4:1.
18
Id. at 6.
tn
Id. atZ.
Ford v. State-Appellanfs Potition for Discrelionary Reviow Page 10
defendant intended to change his address to 1703 Houston Street but failed to
report his change of address at least seven days before the intended change.2O
The Houston Court of Appeals explained the holding in Thomas as follows:
"Because there was evidence that appellant was living at a new address as
of June 25, 2012, the [factfinder] reasonably could have concluded that
Thomas intended to change address on June 25,2012, and that he violated
article 62.055(a) by failing to report this intended address change on or
before June I 8,2012."2r
Likewise, the Texarkana Court of Appeals interpreted the Thomas holding
to mean that "because there was evidence that a defendant was living at a new
address as of a specific date, the jury could have reasonably concluded that the
defendant intended to change his residence on that same duy.""
b. The State presented no evidence of a new physical
address.
Article 62.055(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure clearly
contemplates a person changing his physical address without alerting law
enforcement. In this case, Mr. Ford had registered at a homeless shelter23 but
stopped staying inside the building "because they had been charging him."2a The
'o Id. at 15.
"22 Gilde, v. State,469 S.W.3d 636,640 (Tex. App.-Houston [l4th Dist.] 2015).
Dotie v, State,2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 10046,at *16 (Tex. App-Tex arkana,september 25,
20rs).
" 11 R.R. atTo).
2o
1r n.R. at96).
Ford v. State-Appellant's Petition for Discretionarv Review
Page ll
State did not establish that Appellant moved to an address different from the one
at which he had registered. The closest the State came to offering evidence of a
new physical address was its allusion to "tent city."ts The State offered no
evidence that"tent city" existed, let alone that "tent city" had an actual address.
At trial, the State argued that if Mr. Ford was not sleeping inside the the
homeless shelter, he needed to provide the registration office with a specific,
detailed geographic description of where he was sleeping2u b.rt that he failed to
noti$r law enforcement of where he was "laying his head down at night."21
However, article 62.055(a) does not require a person to provide law enforcement
with a specific, detailed description of where he is sleeping each night if he is
sleeping in a location to which a physical address has not been assigned.
The State did have at its disposal a crime with which to charge the homeless
Mr. Ford. Article 62.055(i) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides as
follows:
"lf a person is required to register as a sex offender and resides for more
than seven days at a location or locations to which a physical address has
not been assigned by a governmental entity, the person, not less than once in
each 30-day period, shall confirm the person's location or locations by:
2s
Ford v. state,20l5 Tex. App. LEXIS 11483, at *3 (Tex. App.-waco November 5, 2015)
(mem. op., not designated for publication).
26
11 R.R. at 84).
27
11 R.R. at 60); (1 R.R. at 90); (1 R.R. att72).
Ford v. State-Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review Page 12
(l) reporting to the local law enforcement authority in the municipality
where the person resides or... and (2) providing a detailed description of the
applicable location or locations.,,
However, the State chose not to indict Mr. Ford under article 62.055(i); and
because Mr. Ford did not move to a different address, article 62.055(a) simply
does not apply here.
c. The stute did not establish that Appellant changed his
address as of a speciftc date, because Appellant was
never located at a different address.
Unlike in Thomas, the State did not establish a specific date on which Mr.
Ford was living at a new address. Mr. Ford was never located at his alleged new
residence at"tent city." Mr. Ford registered his address as that of the My Brother's
Keeper homeless shelter on october 17,2012.28 on March zg, z0l3, the Waco
Police Department'\vas told that Ford was no longer living there."2e The Tenth
Court of Appeals' opinion states that on March 31,2013, a police officer "found
Ford at another location."30 The record indicates that on March 3L,20I3,3t the
officer encountered Appellant dumpster diving 32 within three blocks of My
"2e Id., at*4.
Id.
30
Id.
31
1t R.R. at93).
32
11 R.R. at95-96).
Ford v. State-Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review
Page 13
Brother's Keeper.33 The officer could not recall if "he had gone to 'tent city"' to
determine whether (1) the fabled "tent city" actually existed or (2) Appellant was
in fact living there.3a
ilL Conclasion
Here, there was no evidence that Mr. Ford moved to a specific physical
address. "Tent city" is not a physical address. Furthermore, not only was Appellant
never located in 'tent city," but "tent city" remains undiscovered, uncharted
territory. Finding the evidence legally sufficient to establish that Appellant failed
to report an intended change of address under the facts of this case required the
Tenth Court of Appeals to misapply Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art.
62.055(a), to broaden the scope of this Court's opinion in Thomas, and to
disregard case law from sister courts of appeal. As such, this Honorable Court
should gtantreview.
]] rt n.n. at 111); ^see Defendant's Exhibit4 (mapof downtown waco).
'* (1 R.R. at 107).
Ford v. State-Appgllant's Petition for Discrelionary Review
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Mr. Ford prays that this Court grant his Petition for Discretionary Review.
Respectfu lly submitted,
L,q.w Orrrcn or Srvrnn & TnrnNs
lsl Chelsea Tiierina
Chelsea Tijerina
3706 Bellmead Drive
Waco, Texas 76705
(2s4) 412-2300
(888) 3 17 -7 610-Facsimile
E-mail : attorneychelsea@gmail. com
State Bar No. 24076733
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
CERTIFICATE OF' SERVICE
On December 29, 2015, a copy of this Petition for Discretionary Review
was delivered to the Mclennan County District Attorney's Office by facsimile.
lsl Chelsea Tiierina
Chelsea Tijerina
Ford v. Stale-:Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Roview
Page 15
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TEX. R. APP. P.9.4
certificate of compliance with Type-volume Limitation,
Typeface Requirements, and Type Style Requirements
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of TBx. R. App. p.
9.4(i)(2)(D) because this brief contains 1,865 words, excluding the parts of
the brief exempted by Tnx. R. App. p. 9.4(ixl), and
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements and the type style
requirements of TBx. R. App. P. 9.a(e) because this brief has been produced
on a computer in conventional typeface using Microsoft Word in Times
New Roman 14 point font in the body of the brief and Times New Roman
12 point font in the footnotes.
lsl Chelsea Tiierina
Chelsea Tijerina
Attorney for Appellant
Ford v. State-Appellants Petition for Discretionary Review
Page 16
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. L0-1.4-00335-CR
IOSEPH CLYDE FORD,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 19th District Court
Mclennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2013 -1179-C1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court convicted Joseph Clyde Ford of the offense of failure to register
as
a sex offender. The trial court found the enhancement paragraph to be true and assessed
punishment at twenty years confinement. We affirm.
In the sole issue on appeal, Ford contends that the evidence is insufficient to
support his conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals has expressed our standard of
review of a sufficiency issue as follows:
In determi^i^g whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support
a conviction,,a reviewing court must consider all of the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict and determine whether, based on that
evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational fact finder
could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
lackson a. virginia, 443Lr.s.907,31g-19 (1979); Hoiper a. state,2l4s.w.zd g,
L3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). This "familiar standard gives full play to
the
responsibitify 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." lackson,443 U.S. at319. "Each fact need not point directly
and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as th-e cumulative
force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficGnt to support the
conviction." Hooper,214 S.W.gd at j.3.
Lucio zt. state,351 s.w.3d 878,894 (Tex. crim. App. 201,1), cert den,d,132 s.ct. 2Tr2,1g3
L.Ed.2d 71(2012).
The Court of Criminal Appeals has also explained that our review of ',all of
the
evidence" includes evidence that was properly and improperly admitte d. Conner u. State,
67 S'wsd 192, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). And if the record supports conflicting
inferences, we must presume that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the
prosecution and therefore defer to that determinatton. laclcson u, Virginia,443IJ.S. g0Z,
326,99 S. Ct. 278'1.,61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979\. Further, direct and circumstantial
evidence
are treated equally: "Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence
in
establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to
establish guilt." Hooper a. state,2l4s.w.gdg,'l.g (Tex. Crim. App. 200n. Finally, it is well
established that the factfinder is entitled to judge the credibility of witnesses
and can
choose to believe all, some, or none of the testimony presented by the parties.
Chambers
a. State,805 S.W.2d459,461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Ford v. State
Page 2
Betty Wilson, with the Waco Police Department, testified that Ford completed a
sex offender registration formJanuary 25,2012.On that form, Ford listed
his residence as
1217 Mary, Waco, Texas. That address is the location for a shelter, My Brother,s Keeper.
On Octob et 17 ,2012, Ford again registered his address with the Waco police Department
as 1217 Mary in Waco. Ford did not register with the Waco Police Department
after
October 17,2012. Wilson testified that on March 28,2018, she contacted My Brother,s
Keeper, and she was told that Ford was no longer living there. Ford never
informed
wilson that he was no longer living at My Brother's Keeper.
Officer Richard |ohnson, with the Waco Police Department, testified that on March
31,20'1.3, Betty Wilson contacted him and asked him to go by My Brother,s Keeper to see
if Ford was staying there. After learning that Ford was not at My Brother,s Keeper,
Officer fohnson found Ford at another location. Ford told Officer
Johnson that he was no
longer staying at My Brother's Keeper because they were going to charge him money
to
stay there. Officer Johnson testified that Ford told him he was staying at ,,tent
city,, over
by the Brazos River. Officer Johnson told Ford he needed to contact Betty Wilson for
registration.
Carlton Willis testified that he is the program director for Mission Waco, which
runs My Brother's Keeper. Willis stated that a person staying at My Brother,s Keeper
would have to sign-up daily to stay at My Brother's Keeper and is not allowed to sign-up
to stay multiple nights. An individual staying at My Brother's Keeper is required to
check-out each morning and to sign-in when arriving at night. My Brother,s Keeper
maintains records detailing who stays at the facility. Willis testified that My Brother,s
Ford v. State
Page 3
Keeper charges a nominal fee to stay at the facility. If a person is unable to pay the fee,
he will be assigned a chore to cover the fee. Willis stated that Ford last stayed
at My
Brother's Keeper on August 14,2012. Willis testified that if an individual
was sleeping
or staying outside of the building, he would be asked to leave.
Ford testified that he informed Betty Wilson that he was not staying inside
the
building of My Brother's Keeper. He testified that he told her My Brother,s Keeper
was
charging him to stay there so he "may be there or around about there.,, Ford
further
testified that he never told officer |ohnson he was staying at,,tent city.,'
To support a conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, the State
was
required to prove that Ford: (1) was required to register as a sex offender under
Chapter
52 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and (2) failed to comply with Article
62.055(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tux. Coor Cruu. pnoc. art.
62.055(a). Section 62.055 (a) provides alternative manners and means of committi^g
*
offense, Thomas a, state, 444s.w .gd 4, g-1.0 (Tex. crim. App. 2014\. A person commits an
offense if he (1) fails to report a change of address "not later than the seventh
day before
the intended change ," or (2) fails to report "not later than the ... seventh day after
changing
the address." Id at10.
Irr this case, as in Thomas, the indictment was not as broad as authorized by law
because the State alleged a specific manner and means. See Thomas v. State,444
S.W.3d at
10. As a result of specifyitg a specific statutory manner and means in the indictment,
the "law as authorized by the indictment" in ttris case allowed Ford to be convicted
onlv
Ford v. State
Page4
if he failed to report a change in address "not later than the seventh dav before the
intended change."
Ford argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he moved or intended
to move from My Brother's Keeper. InThomas, the appellant registered his address
as an
apartment on South Green Street. Thomas a. State,444S.W.gd at6. The Longview police
Department contacted the manager of the apartment to ask if she was aware a registered
sex offender was residing at the aPartment. The manager indicated that she
was not and
asked the police to issue a criminal trespass warning to Appellant. Appellant was
arrested on outstanding warrants, and he gave another address on Houston Street when
he was booked into the county jail. OnJune 25, anofficer went to the South Green address
to ask the manager if Appellant was residing there, and the manager said he was not.
The officer then went to the address on Houston Street where he found Appellant.
Appellant told the officer that he was staying at the residence on Houston Street.
The Court found that the factfinder was entitled to believe the officer's testimony
that Appellant told him he lived on Houston Street as of June 25 and to disregard other
contrary testimony that he lied about moving. Thomas o. State, 4.M S.W.gd at 10. The
Court stated that the factfinder could have further "reasonably concluded that Appellant
was guilty of the charged crime because he never reported his intended change in address
in person and at least seven days before his intended move on june 25." Id. The Court
noted that the latest date on which Appellant could have complied with the law to report
his intended change in address would have been June 1.8, but Appellant never appeared
in person to report his intended change of address. Id. at 10-11.
Ford v. State
Page 5
The facts in this case are similar to those inThomas. Officer
Johnson testified that
on March 31', 2013, Ford told him he was no longer tiving at the My Brother,s
Keeper
address and that he was living at "tent city." The factfinder was entitled
to believe Officer
]ohnson's testimony that as of March 3'!,,20'L3,Ford said he lived at,,tent clty.,, Ford was
therefore required to report his intended change of address at least seven
days prior to
that date. The record shows that Ford did not report his intended change
of address prior
to March 24,2013, We find that the evidence is sufficient to support Ford.'s
conviction for
failure to register as a sex offender. we overrule the sole issue.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
AL SCOGGINS
]ustice
Before Chief justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 5,2015
Do not publish
lcR 251
Ford v. State
Page 6