Curtis Wayne Teer v. State
11-15-00139-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Curtis Wayne Teer, a convicted sex offender (indecency with a child by contact), was indicted on two counts for failing to comply with sex-offender registration: (Count I) failing to report an intended change of address / new address to Midland PD within the statutory 7‑day windows; (Count II) failing to report a change in employment to Midland PD within seven days.
- Teer last updated Midland PD with a La Salle Circle address (July 29, 2013) and employment at Mayden Oilfield Services (August 9, 2013); no further updates were made to Midland PD.
- Teer was locked out of his registered residence around Sept. 16–17, 2013, remained in Midland and continued working until Oct. 23, 2013, then left for Arizona and began working there Oct. 26, 2013; he did not notify Midland PD of address or employment changes.
- Midland PD learned Teer was in federal custody in Arizona, determined he was out of compliance, and obtained an arrest warrant; Teer was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 4 years confinement on each count.
- Teer appealed pro se raising sufficiency, jury-charge error, improper argument, admission/authentication of records, denial of counsel/ineffective assistance, failure to hold new‑trial hearing, and related due-process claims; the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Teer’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — Count I (address report) | Evidence insufficient: no intent to change address; locked out without advance notice; new residence outside Midland so no duty to notify Midland after move | Teer stayed in Midland ~1 month after being locked out and never notified Midland PD within 7 days before or after change; Midland PD was his primary registration authority | Affirmed — evidence sufficient under Jackson standard to support conviction for failing to report address change |
| Sufficiency — Count II (employment report) | Evidence insufficient to prove job status changed at Mayden | Testimony (Neal) and Teer’s own admission indicate employment ended Oct. 23, 2013; consider all admitted evidence | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to show failure to report employment change |
| Preservation / Improper jury argument | Prosecutor made improper remarks in closing | No contemporaneous objection at trial; error waived | Affirmed — issue not preserved for appeal |
| Prior conviction referenced in indictment / jury charge | Trial court erred in reading prior conviction and including it in charge despite stipulation | Prior conviction is an essential element of the registration offense; indictment may be read and charge must include elements | Affirmed — no error in reading or including prior conviction |
| Jury charge omission (abstract paragraph missing statutory locale language) | Omitted statutorily required phrase constituted fundamental error | Application paragraph accurately tracked indictment; omission did not cause egregious harm; Midland remained relevant | Affirmed — omission did not produce egregious harm given application paragraph and record |
| False testimony / invited error re: statutory interpretation | State used false testimony violating due process | The challenged testimony was elicited by defense (invited error); claim not reviewable | Affirmed — invited error bars relief |
| Admission/authentication of registration records | Records had no probative value / improperly admitted | Objection at trial was limited to authentication; different appellate argument not preserved | Affirmed — complaint not preserved |
| Right to counsel / ineffective assistance / motion for new trial hearing | Counsel ineffective; denied counsel at critical motion-for-new-trial stage; court erred by denying motions without hearing | Record shows counsel filed motion for new trial and represented Teer until he was permitted to proceed pro se; allegations of ineffectiveness are unsupported and largely trial‑strategy matters; no abuse in denying hearing | Affirmed — no abandonment, ineffective‑assistance claims not shown on record, and no abuse in denying new‑trial hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (abolition of factual‑sufficiency review for elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Young v. State, 341 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (alternative manners/means of failing to report address under Article 62.055)
- Thomas v. State, 444 S.W.3d 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (interpretation of Chapter 62 registration elements)
- Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (jury charge must set out all elements; application paragraph is the charge’s core)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for reviewing unobjected‑to jury charge error)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)