Ford, Joseph Clyde

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