Haim Silber v. State, 371 S.W.3d 605

Silber was convicted of indecency with a child, a second‑degree felony, and placed on community supervision for five years with sex‑offender registration and treatment requirements.
The State moved to revoke supervision, alleging failure to report a change of address under Article 62.055(a) and failure to attend sex‑offender treatment.
Evidence showed the defendant’s registered address was not consistently occupied, with witnesses indicating limited overnight stays and no electricity, but mail and some visits continued to indicate ongoing connection to the registered address.
The State presented police observations of appellant at his parents’ home and at the registered address, plus UPS box address use, to argue a change of residence and failure to comply with registration.
The trial court revoked supervision based on findings that Silber violated registration requirements and failed to attend treatment; this revocation was reversed and supervision reinstated on appeal.
Appellant’s witnesses testified to his ongoing presence at the registered address and financial constraints preventing full compliance with electricity, yet not negating continued residency at that address.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the State prove a change of residence for registration purposes?	State alleged Silber moved to his parents’ house and never resided at the registered address.	Silber did not abandon the registered address; he spent nights there and maintained residency.	No; the State failed to prove a change of residence.
Did the State prove failure to attend sex offender treatment on January 27, 2011?	Silber failed to attend the scheduled treatment session.	Any missed appointment was due to arrest for registration issues, not a deliberate non‑compliance with treatment.	No; the State failed to prove nonattendance on the specific date.

Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (probation revocation standard; preponderance of evidence required)
Canseco v. State, 199 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (revocation review; evidence standard and deference to trial court)
Scamardo v. State, 517 S.W.2d 293 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (probation revocation requires a preponderance of the evidence)
Joseph v. State, 3 S.W.3d 627 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (one substantial ground can support revocation)
Whitehead v. State, 556 S.W.2d 802 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (residence is an elastic term; cannot prove change by absence alone)
Whitney v. State, 472 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) (residence; registered address and actual residence distinction)
Green v. State, 350 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (address change reporting requirements; interpretation of registration rules)
Villanueva v. State, 257 S.W.3d 527 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (interpretation of registration duties; residency concepts)
Young v. State, 341 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (umbrella nature of Article 62.102; broad registration requirements)