Robinson, Leo Demory
2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 763
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Robinson, a required sex-offender registrant after a prior sexual-related burglary conviction, was indicted for failing to comply with Chapter 62 registration rules for not giving in-person pre-move notice at least seven days before changing address.
- Robinson waived a jury, had a bench trial, testified he tried to give pre-move notice but was turned away by the Glenn Heights PD; officers and his parole officer offered conflicting testimony about when he moved and whether notice was given.
- The trial judge found Robinson guilty, made informal findings indicating he believed some of Robinson’s attempts to comply, and sentenced him to two years confinement (suspended) with probation.
- On appeal the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that any required mens rea applies to knowledge of the duty to register but not to the failure-to-notify act; it also reviewed sufficiency of the evidence without relying on the judge’s findings.
- This Court granted review to decide (1) what culpable mental state §62.102(a) requires and to which elements it attaches, and (2) whether appellate sufficiency review in bench trials may consider trial-court findings/conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What mens rea §62.102(a) requires and to which elements it attaches | Robinson: conviction required proof of intentional/knowing/reckless failure to give notice (including as to the act of failing to notify) | State: if mens rea required it need only attach to knowledge of duty to register, not to the method/timing of notification | Mens rea required by Penal Code §6.02(c) applies as to the circumstances (duty to register); knowledge or recklessness required for duty-to-register element only (not intent for the notification act) |
| May appellate courts consider trial judge’s findings/conclusions in sufficiency review after a bench trial? | Robinson: appellate court should consider the trial judge’s findings of fact/conclusions of law when reviewing legal sufficiency | State: sufficiency review uses the hypothetical rational factfinder standard (Jackson) and should not treat unauthorized findings as binding | Appellate courts must disregard trial-court findings/conclusions and apply the standard Jackson-Brooks sufficiency review (hypothetical rational factfinder) |
| Was the evidence legally sufficient to convict here? | Robinson: his attempted (but rebuffed) efforts to register rendered evidence insufficient as to culpable mental state or failure element | State: evidence (officer and parole officer testimony, room inspection) supports conviction for failure to give proper pre-move notice | Evidence was legally sufficient: Robinson admitted knowledge of duty; record supports a rational factfinder finding he failed to provide required pre-move in-person notice within seven days |
Key Cases Cited
- McQueen v. State, 781 S.W.2d 600 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstances that render otherwise innocent conduct criminal require mens rea; mens rea may attach to multiple conduct elements)
- Young v. State, 341 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. Crim. App.) (analyzes gravamen of failure-to-register offense as subverting registry’s monitoring purpose)
- Huffman v. State, 267 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. Crim. App.) (failure-to-stop-and-render-aid treated as circumstances-of-conduct offense requiring mens rea as to accident/victim circumstance)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review: whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- DeLay v. State, 443 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. Crim. App.) (analysis of when mens rea must attach to nature-of-conduct and circumstance elements)