Febus, Albert Junior, PD-1369-15

Albert Junior Febus, a registered sex offender (prior indecency with a child conviction), moved within the same apartment complex in March 2013 and was required to update his registration.
At an in-person registration on March 6, 2013, registration forms listed Febus’s new address as 6110 Glenmont Apt. 45, but Febus says he intended 6100 Glenmont Apt. 45; he signed the forms without correcting the address.
Seven months later, a compliance officer visited the listed address (6110) and could not locate Febus; a warrant followed and Febus was charged under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 62.055 and 62.102 for failing to provide the anticipated move date and new address.
At trial the jury convicted Febus of failure to comply; at punishment he pleaded true to two prior felonies and received an enhanced 35-year sentence.
Febus appealed contending the evidence was insufficient because the State failed to prove he intentionally or knowingly failed to provide the correct address; he argued the incorrect address resulted from a clerical error and did not show mens rea for the failure-to-provide element.
The First Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision in Robinson (interpreting Article 62.102 to require culpability only as to the duty-to-register element), concluding the State proved Febus knew of the duty to register and that he failed to comply by signing documents listing the incorrect address.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Febus)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for conviction under art. 62.102 (failure to comply)	State: Evidence shows Febus knew of registration duties (forms, prior compliance) and failed to comply by signing registration listing the incorrect address.	Febus: He lacked intent/knowledge in failing to provide the correct address; the wrong address was a clerical or negligent mistake creating reasonable doubt on mens rea.	Court of Appeals: Affirmed. Under Robinson, culpable mental state required only for duty-to-register; evidence of awareness + signed forms showing incorrect address suffice to prove failure to comply.

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sets Jackson legal-sufficiency framework in Texas criminal appeals)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (court should not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the jury)
Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (application of Jackson standard to Texas cases)
Harris v. State, 364 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (discussion of mens rea allegations in sex-offender registration indictments)