*1 County We reverse order
Court Law No. and render
reinstating the Justice of the Peace
Court’s, Precinct Ector order
that affirmed denial of Mr. DPS’s Hukill’s
application carry handgun. a concealed Collina, Christi,
Joseph V. for appellant. RIOS,
Enrique Appellant, Valdez, County Nueces Carlos Dist. Norman, Atty., Douglas K. Asst. Dist. Christi, Atty., Corpus appellee. Texas, Appellee. The STATE of No. 13-02-732-CR. HINOJOSA, YÁÑEZ, Before Justices and CASTILLO. Texas, Appeals Court Corpus Christi-Edinburg. OPINION
July Opinion by Justice YÁÑEZ. Rehearing En Banc Overruled trial, Sept. Following Enrique a bench Rios third-degree felony convicted of the
was comply offense of failure to with sex-of- See requirements. fender 62.01, Peoc. Ann. arts. Tex.Code CRIm. (Vernon 62.03, He Supp.2004). 62.10 years imprisonment. sentenced to two issues, legal challenges two Rios sup- factual of the evidence to hold the evidence port his conviction. We con- legally support insufficient judg- trial court’s viction and reverse the ment.
Background registered as a On sex at his mother’s resi- offender dence, located at 2212 Cor- Texas. See Tex.Code CRiM. Christi, pus (Vernon 62.03, Supp. PROC.Ann. arts. 62.04 legal but rather conclusion that was drawn from that classification. *2 Mary at the lived with her testimony that he had trial, conflicting
At
there was
“all the time.”
continuously
address
Rios had lived
as to whether
from the date
Mary Street address
at the
Weidenfeller,
of records
custodian
Tami
through
of his
Hospital, verified
Spohn
at Christus
15, 2002,
alleged
the date
records.
introduction of
violation.
reflect that on
The records
visit,
Casares, Sr.,
Ray
days after the officers’
Victor
four
officer,
on Feb-
pre-
testified that
police
Christi
to obtain a refill
attempted
Rios
15, 2002,
Yba-
hospi-
he and officer Andrew
ruary
by visiting the
medication
scription
checks on
conducting compliance
nez were
of Rios’s Febru-
hospital records
tal. The
arriving
Upon
offenders.
registered sex
address as
ary
treatment
show his
Street,
Mary
the officers encoun-
at 2212
testi-
“2212
Street.” Weidenfeller
Petri,
mother,
outside.
tered Rios’s
Natalia
provide
an
patients
that
are asked
fied
had
Petri told them she
Casares testified
admission,
no other
but that
upon
address
twenty-two years.
at the address for
lived
pa-
requested
information
Casares,
that Rios
Petri said
According
address.
tient’s
there,
he
in Dal-
longer
that
was
lived
Review
Standard
las,
him for a
and that she had not seen
months,
The
couple of
since Christmas.
insufficiency of evidence
legal
Claims of
on a
signature
officers
Petri’s
obtained
the evidence
by examining
are reviewed
longer
that Rios no
lived
stating
form
to the verdict to
favorable
light
most
the address.
any rational
trier
determine whether
the essential ele-
fact could have found
corroborated
Officer Ybanez
Casares’s
cross-examination,
beyond
offense
a reasonable
ments of the
testimony. On
Ybanez
443 U.S.
Virginia,
v.
doubt. See Jackson
testified the officers did not search
cember 2001 cy should be against measured elements of the “elements offense as defined by a of the offense as hypotheti- defined hypothetically jury correct charge for the cally jury charge correct for the case” 124,131 case. See Adi v. cases).1 all sufficiency The court of crimi- d) (Tex.App.-Corpus pet. ref appeals nal has made clear that under (discussing application of “hypothetically *3 Malik, “the indictment [is] basis for jury charge” analytical correct construct in allegations proved” which must be and factual-sufficiency context of review in case hypothetically that the jury charge correct jury). reviewing tried to the factual by for the ease must be “authorized sufficiency of the elements of the offense State, indictment.” Gollihar v. 46 S.W.3d on which the carries the burden of 243, 254 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing proof, impartially we examine all of the State, 156, 159, Planter v. 9 S.W.3d n. 5 & set the verdict only and aside if 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)). “proof of guilt obviously is so weak as to When a statute lists more than one undermine in the confidence [fact-finder’s] offense, method committing an and the determination, or the of guilt, al- some, alleges all, indictment but not alone, though if adequate greatly taken methods, statutorily listed the State is lim- outweighed by contrary proof.” ited to the alleged. methods Fuller v. State, 89, Swearingen v. 101 S.W.3d 97 State, 250, (Tex.Crim.App. 73 S.W.3d 255 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (citing Johnson v. 2002) (Keller, P.J., concurring) (citing Cur- State, 1, (Tex.Crim.App. 23 11 S.W.3d State, (Tex.Crim. ry v. 30 S.W.3d 2000)). required are also to accord We Gollihar, App.2000)); due determi- deference to the fact-finder’s Questions concerning credibility credibility of weight nations on the and weight witnesses and the given be their may merely evidence and substitute testimony are to be resolved the trier of our that of the fact- own fact. Mosley Johnson, Id.; finder. 23 S.W.3d at see (Tex.Crim.App.1998). Evidence is not ren- Mosley, (questions at 254 con- conflicting dered insufficient when evi- cerning credibility weight of witnesses and dence is introduced. Matchett v. by the given testimony their are resolved 936 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). fact). trier of The reviewing court must assume that the conflicts, fact including finder resolved Analysis inferences, conflicting in favor of the ver- dict, and must defer to that resolution. Id. “fail- charges The indictment Rios with require- also comply registration measure the factual ure to 62.01,262.03,3 non-jury of the evidence in a trial the ments” and cites articles dissenting opinion, 1.We note that in her Jus- 2. Article 62.01 contains definitions terms argues unequivocal tice applicable registration Castillo that Malik’s to the sex offender language that the program chapter Malik standard "can uni- 62. See outlined in Tex.Code trials, formly (Vernon applied be Supp. all whether to the Proc. Ann. art. 62.01 Crim. jury,” bench or to the see Malik v. 1997), (Tex.Crim.App. provides, pertinent part, Article 62.03 "should not be a read in vacuum.” Justice prior being penal released from a repeats argument Castillo thus verbatim the institution, person subject concurring opinion she articulated in her requirements must be informed that: (Tex. Wheaton v. (J. (A) App.-Corpus pet.) Christi Castil- not later than the seventh after lo, concurring). person or the date on which the is released (2) 62.104 of the code of criminal procedure. pursuant by Corpus to a visit Christi 62.01, See Tex.Code CRIM. 15, 2002, arts. police February officers Ann. PROC. (Vernon 62.08, 62.10 Supp.2004). Specifi- signed mother a statement that he had not cally, alleges the indictment that Rios: lived at 2212 Street since “December
on or 2001,” about period approximately six to Texas, Nueces weeks; eight reportable because of a convic- Corpus Rios returned to some- Child, tion for Indecency with a and did time between 2002 and Feb- then and there intentionally, knowingly ruary 2002 because his medical records recklessly fail to the informa- show he was admitted to the tion in completed registration form 19, 2002; Christi on *4 by fading to report no later than the (4) Christi, Corpus when he returned to he day seventh after his arrival the mu- report failed to “no later than the seventh nicipality where he resided and intended day Corpus after his arrival” to the Christi to days, reside for more than seven police department. Christi,
wit: Corpus to the local law proving In Rios failed to authority, comply enforcement with namely the Cor- registration pus requirements, Christi Police the State was Department, who had received therefore registration allegation said form. limited to the in the indictment: that report he failed to within brief, (1) In the indictment thus alleged: seven days of his “arrival in”—or return person Rios’s status as a reportable with a Corpus Christi. (2) to— conviction; that he intentionally, know- ingly, recklessly failed to trial, however, At the State relied on form; information in his registration and Petri’s statement as evidence that Rios (3) by failing report Corpus to the longer living “was no Mary at 2212 Department Christi Police no later than added). (emphasis Street.” ar- The State days seven after his arrival in Corpus gued: Christi. ... We do not have the [Prosecutor]: alleged
The State Rios failed to comply proving burden of where the Defendant with requirements be- proving is. We have the burden of cause: he is not somewhere. And I believe in case, on registered again, he this the evidence with is the Corpus police Christi department as a clear that he was not there. ... And sex offender living Mary at 2212 again, prove Street we do not have to where he Christi; Corpus was, been, might where he have but officer, person previ- date on which the community supervision moves from a and correc- state, ous residence to a new officer, residence in this department parole tions or officer su- person must: pervising person. (i) register verify registration or with the lo- See art. TexCode Crim. Proc. Ann. authority cal law enforcement in the munici- 62.03(a)(1)(A),(B) (Vernon Supp.2004). pality county person or in which the intends to reside .... [and] 62.10(a) provides person 4. Article that "[a] (B) not later than the seventh before the person commits an offense if the is person date on which the moves to new comply and fails to re- state, residence in this state or another quirement chapter.” of this See TexCode person report person must to the local law 62.10(a) (Vernon Supp. Crim. Proc. Ann. art. authority person enforcement with whom the registered juvenile probation last and to the in” Mary. Corpus “arrived or returned to simply that he was at 2212 Christi added) days within (emphasis report and failed to seven Corpus Department. Christi Police regard- presented The State evidence Thus, legally insufficient evidence ing allegedly the date Rios returned to conviction. support Rios’s Corpus register. Christi and failed to brief, argues that “the trial its the State disposition Because of Rios’s of our first court was entitled to believe Rios’ own also issue, unnecessary it is for us to address medical that he Tex.R.App. admissions his records P. his second issue. See 47.1. Corpus had moved and was back Christi judgment the trial court’s We reverse residing Mary at 2212 on acquittal. render a only supporting 2002.” The evidence theory that “returned” to the State’s Dissenting opinion Justice after elsewhere is ERRLINDA CASTILLO. records, medical which reflect he Justice, CASTILLO, dissenting. was admitted find dissent. I would respectfully gave 2002 and his address as factually sufficient to legally noted, custodian Street. As support Rios’s conviction. the records that information re- testified *5 garding patient’s provided by address is Rios’s I. The Evidence of patient at the time of admission and Noncompliance
that she unaware there was whether were any procedures verifying such informa- sex offender. He Rios is a convicted tion. registration his as a verify required was with local annual sex on an basis offender “[hjaving that argues
The State arrived in the munici- law authorities enforcement in sometime between Corpus back Christi intro- pality where he resided.1 Records 19, February February Thomas through duced John the State registration Rios was regis- Hornsby, of sex-offender custodian Depart- Corpus with the Christi Police Po- Corpus tration for the Christi records that February ment.” We conclude Rios’s Rios verified Department, lice showed that showing records his hospital ad- 25, 2001. He registration his Mary legally in- dress as 2212 Street are Street, Corpus reported that he “arrived” in sufficient establish Christi, Texas, residence. place his Corpus on that date.5 Christi Ray Ca- In February hold that the State offered no evi- Victor Sr., Corpus sares, that an officer with supporting allegation dence its Rios above, February dissenting opinion, her Justice noted we conclude Rios’s 5. Castillo supports legally the evidence an infer- to es- concludes that insufficient records are ence that "returned to and lived in Corpus Rios on that tablish his arrival County beginning than Nueces no later Feb- see Rios’s health date. We fail to how also sup- ruary The cited in 2002.” showing coverage for the relevant care card (1) port that inference is: "Rios this that period supports an inference he time phone as his claimed his mother's number Corpus arrived Christi between hospital's and her home as his address on 2002 and patient registration form on 2002;” hospital records con- 62.02(d) art. 1. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. regarding his health care tained information (Vernon Supp.2004). coverage showing a to Nueces connection County during period. the relevant time As Department, Christi Police contacting provided telephone the same number as convicted compli- sex offenders to ensure provided Petri had in her written state- registration ance with the sex-offender ment. The medical records included a laws. Casares visited the Rios address copy County of Rios’s Nueces Hospital registered had in April place 2001 as his of District health care card and showed a spoke residence. Casares with Rios’s policy number and Christi address mother, testified, Natalia Petri. Casares patient listed under “insurance” on Rios’s objection, without him Petri told coverage form. The dates of did not live there. She said she had not on the card are “From 10-31-01 to shown seen Rios since Christmas 2001. Casares Further, 4-31-02.” the arrest warrant testified, objection, also without that Petri contained in the clerk’s record of this case specifically told him Rios was Dallas. reflects an showing officer’s return statement, The State introduced a written County Rios was arrested a Nueces again objection, without signed by Petri deputy May Nueces Texas on and acknowledging that Rios had not lived 31, 2002. at 2212 Mary Street since December 2001. challenging Rios raises two issues phone statement also included Petri’s legal and factual of the evi- number. support dence to I his conviction. turn to trial, however, At Petri testified that scope and standards of review. Rios had lived with her since his release prison from and was with her at II. SUFFICIENCY SCOPE AND 2212 Mary on February STANDARDS OF REVIEW She said the officers came to her home and told they her were patrolling the area for agree analytical that the construct de- *6 burglars. The officers did not ask her by fined the Ap- Texas Court of Criminal about Rios’s whereabouts. believed peals She in reviewing legal- and factual-suffi- that the statement signed simply she ac- ciency challenges in jury applies trials knowledged that the patrol- officers were trials. See Malik v. equally nonjury State, ling the area. (Tex.Crim.App. 240 that Malik mandates disagree I Ybanez, Andrew an officer with the Cor- grafting the language “hypothetically cor- pus Christi Department, Police testified he jury rect charge” nonjury sufficiency into duty was on with Casares on analyses. repetition Mechanical 2002. Ybanez testified Petri appeared to term in place has the context of a bench understand questions. Casares’s Ybanez trial such that under review in this case. stated neither spoke he nor Casares burglars. Petri about Ybanez that added The of appeals court criminal coined the explained Casares the contents of the writ- term “hypothetically jury charge” correct ten statement to Petri signed before she it. as shorthand specif- for Malik’s cure for a Rios introduced medical from records ic ill: a acquittal sufficiency defendant’s Spohn Christas Hospital, Memorial located See id. grounds charge for error. Christi, in Corpus (“Moreover, Texas. The records the standard we formulate to- showed that hospital provided the medical ensures that a acquittal of is services Rios on 2002. As reserved for those in situations which by noted the majority, provided his there is an actual failure in the State’s admission, address at giving proof 2212 of the crime rather than a mere submitted.”). Street as his current address. He also jury charge error the The 756 an- began, jury charge
mischief with the standard fact that there is no in the Malik, case, hypothetical nounced in but one sentence: or otherwise. It would make as much to refer to sense the fact Hence, sufficiency of the evidence should jury. in a trial as the nonjury finder by the be measured the elements of same, the name is role is but the different. by hypothetically offense as defined the mandates I do not believe Malik reference charge a jury correct for the case. Such jury sufficiency analysis, in the either. one charge accurately would be sets law, by out the is authorized the indict- Legal Sufficiency A. ment, unnecessarily does not increase challenge A calls legal-sufficiency ap for the burden of or unneces- State’s review of relevant pellate sarily restrict the State’s theories of lia- light prosecution. most favorable bility, adequately par- describes the Virginia, v. 443 U.S. Jackson 99 ticular offense the defendant which (1979); 2781, 61 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Swear was tried. This can standard uniform- (Tex. State, v. ingen trials, ly applied be to all whether to the Crim.App.2003); Johnson jury, bench or to the or not the whether (Tex.Crim.App.2000). con facially complete, indictment and re- sider all the evidence sustains the gardless wording specific conviction, or properly improperly whether charge actually jury given. by or introduced admitted whether added) omitted). (footnote Id. (emphasis defense, or prosecution determining single This statement should not be read legal sufficiency of the evidence. Con Malik, in a After vacuum. the court (Tex.Crim. 192,197 ner v. by appeals criminal refined what it meant reviewing App.2001). Similarly, in the le the term “authorized indictment.” by the evidence, gal sufficiency of we look (Tex. Curry v. during all of the evidence introduced either Crim.App.2000). Curry held that “author- stage of the trial. De Garmo ized the indictment” means “that (Tex.Crim.App.1985). encompass review ‘the must legal sufficiency would measure the ... as statutory elements the offense ” statutory against this case elements of modified charging instrument.’ *7 (Tex. State, by as the the offense modified indictment. Fuller v. 73 255 S.W.3d Fuller, (Keller, P.J., 73 at 254 (Keller, P.J., See S.W.3d Crim.App.2002) concurring) 404). lists concurring). When a statute more (quoting Curry, 30 at S.W.3d offense, an committing than one method of I nonjury jury conclude and some, alleges and the indictment but not alike, sufficiency cases we the of measure all, methods, the the statutorily of listed against statutory the ele- evidence the alleged. is limited methods of the offense modified the ments Fuller, 255; Curry, 73 at 30 S.W.3d charging Curry, instrument. 30 See if at 404. then determine S.W.3d We reviewing at 404. When the evi- S.W.3d the rational trier of fact could have found a presented jury, dence we refer to this beyond a of the crime essential elements analytical “hypothetically construct aas Jackson, 443 at reasonable doubt. U.S. the jury charge.” reviewing correct In Johnson, 23 at S.W.3d sufficiency of the in a presented evidence however, review, trial, the nonjury performing legal-sufficiency I would not use a charge.” mindful fact finder “hypothetically jury term correct we are that the is credibility given judge of wit- unnecessary, The reference exclusive of the
757 a weight given prove nesses and the to be testimo- review the evidence that tends to ny. compare fact and it with disputed CRiM. PROC. Ann. art. 38.04 material Tex.Code (Vernon 1979); State, disprove it. John- Adelman v. 828 evidence tends son, (Tex.Crim.App.1992); S.W.2d at 7. We are authorized to S.W.3d (Tex. Butts v. the fact finder’s determina- disagree d). However, approach we a factual- App.-Corpus pet. ref tion. Id. may appropriate fact finder some witnesses and review with defer- believe Esquivel substituting judgment refuse to believe others. v. ence to avoid our of evalua- (Tex.Crim.App. for that the fact finder. Id. Our may It also a accept portions substantially of tion should not intrude on the Id.; testimony reject witness’s and of judge others. fact finder’s role as the sole Butts, weight credibility given and to witness tes- timony. Id.
If we a legal reverse criminal case for insufficiency, judgment we vacate the of always We remain aware of the fact legal insufficiency. conviction for Swear unique position, position finder’s role and ingen, 101 95. We then order occupy. we are unable to Id. at 9. Exer- judgment acquittal. of Id. authority disagree cise of our with the fact appropriate finder’s determination is Sufficiency
B. Factual
only
clearly
when the record
indicates our
necessary
stop
intervention is
manifest
also would measure the factual suffi-
Otherwise,
injustice.
ciency of
Id.
we accord due
against
the evidence in this case
fact
the elements of the
deference to the
finder’s determina-
offense as modified
tions, particularly
concerning
constitutionally
the indictment.
are
those
We
weight
credibility of the
empowered
evidence. Id.
review the
trial court to determine the factual suffi-
Every
point directly
fact need not
ciency of the evidence used to establish the
independently
guilt.
to the accused’s
Van
Johnson,
elements of
charged
offense.
(Tex.
derbilt
In determining
S.W.3d at 6.
the factual
A
Crim.App.1981).
finding
guilt
of
can
sufficiency of
the elements of
rest on the
and cumulative force
combined
offense,
we
all
view the evidence neu-
incriminating
of all the
circumstances.
Id.
trally, not through
prism
light
of “the
challenges
an
factual
appellant
When
most
prosecution.”
favorable to the
Id. at
offense,
sufficiency of the elements of the
(citing
6-7
Clewis
“a
all
we ask whether
neutral review of
129 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)).
set aside a
proof
evidence ... demonstrates that the
finding
guilt only
if it
contrary
is so
guilt
obviously
is so
weak as to under
the overwhelming weight of the evidence mine
[fact finder’s]
confidence
deter
clearly wrong
unjust.
as to be
John- mination,
guilt, although
or the
*8
son,
at A clearly wrong
23 S.W.3d
and
alone,
adequate
greatly
if taken
is
out
unjust finding
guilt
un-
“manifestly
of
is
contrary
weighed by
proof.” Zuliani v.
conscience,”
just,”
“clearly
“shocks the
or
(Tex.Crim.
State,
97 S.W.3d
593-94
State,
Rojas
demonstrates bias.”
v.
986
Johnson, 23
at
App.2003) (quoting
S.W.3d
241, 247 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).
S.W.2d
11);
at 97. In
Swearingen,
see
in
conducting
factual-sufficiency
conducting
factual-sufficiency
a
re-
a
review
view,
weighing
opinion,
we review the fact finder’s
an
we “show our work” when we
Johnson,
main
appellant’s
of the evidence.
evidence. Sims later seventh Johnson, address, report in (Tex.Crim.App.2003); changing after the 603 23 State, to the law au- person at v. 112 local enforcement Manning S.W.3d thority municipality in the or (Tex.App.-Houston county 747 [14th S.W.3d Tex.R.App. h.); person’s the residence lo- pet. see P. which new is Dist.] authority provide cated and the practice parties, 47.1. This the with benefits justice sys identity proof of of integrity maintains the of the and residence. tem, improves appellate practice. and 62.04(a) Ann. art. Crim. Tex.Code Proc. Sims, 603; Manning, (Vernon Supp.2004). If at 747. we reverse a criminal S.W.3d Allegation or B. “On About” factual insufficiency,
case for
we vacate the
of Date of Offense
Clewis,
of conviction.
for a
S.W.2d
133-34. We remand
new
the date is a material
of
Unless
element
trial a criminal case reversed for factual
offense,
necessary
an
it is
for an
not
indict-
insufficiency, so a second fact finder has
specify
precise
date on
ment
the
which
chance to
the
the
evaluate
evidence.
charged
the
offense occurred. See Garcia
Sioearingen,
III. APPLICABLE LAW a indictment specifying date the is not Registration A.The Sex-Offender notify the of the date accused Rather, Statute Id. of purpose pro- offense. the prosecu- that the viding a date to show 62.10(a) of of Article the Texas Code tion is not barred the statute limita- Criminal Procedure that it is an provides alleges tion. Id. an indictment When register if person required offense a as about” a a crime occurred “on or certain comply offender fails to sex date, may prove the an offense “with requirements chapter 62. Tex.Code specifically other the one al- date than (Vernon 62.10(a) art. Ann. CRiM. PROC. long as is anterior leged so the date Chapter 62 sets out a Supp.2004). number indictment and presentment the within of situations under which a convicted sex statutory period limitation of- register. Specifically, offender must arti- upon relied otherwise meets de- fense 62.04(a) provides: cle contained in scription of offense person If a intends Yzaguirre indictment.” address, change regardless wheth- (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (quot- move to another person er the intends to Sledge v. 256-57 ing state, shall, later than person (Tex.Crim.App.1997)). change, seventh before the intended local law enforce- report person File C. Contents of Court’s authority person ment with whom the proba- to know the registered juvenile presumed and to the A trial court is last officer, of its file. Cobb community supervision tion contents own officer, An (Tex.Crim.App.1993). department parole corrections or judicial notice of supervising person pro- may officer court take appellate authority part record vide the and the officer with an official document *9 court the “trial did person’s anticipated presume move date and Fleming If required (citing well.” Id. person new address. to address, 822, (Tex.Crim.App.1973)). changes person register 803(10); Hampton IV. THE INDICTMENT see also 437, (Tex.Crim.App.2003) 441 n. 3 alleged The indictment that Rios: (absence may public record be evidence 2002, 15, February on or about in expect where one would to find document Texas, required Nueces existed). Further, I repository within if it reportable because of a convic- in in find evidence the record the form of Child, tion Indecency with a and did and the officers’ Petri’s written statement then and intentionally, knowingly there testimony information she regarding the recklessly fail to the informa- provided away that Rios from moved completed registration tion in the form County Nueces in 2001 and was December by failing report no later than the 15, in rec February Dallas on 2002. The seventh after his arrival in the mu- ord also reflects that Rios claimed his nicipality where he resided and intended phone mother’s number as his and her days, to reside for more than seven hospital’s pa home as his address on the Christi, wit: to the local law registration February tient form on authority, namely enforcement the Cor- 2002. information in hospital’s Other pus Department, Christi Police who had records in form of Rios’s health care registration received said form. coverage also showed a connection to legal-sufficiency analysis, In its the ma- County during Nueces the relevant time jority alleged confuses what the in period.2 Finally, judicial I take notice in arguments the indictment with the the my sufficiency analysis that the arrest prosecutor at made trial. I would confine in the court’s record that a warrant shows my legal-sufficiency to weighing review in County deputy Nueces arrested Rios actual evidence presented against the ele- County May Nueces on 2002. See ments of the offense as modified the Cobb, presume 873. indictment, against not the offense the trial court knew the of its own contents prosecutor argued proved. the State had file. See id. Thus, in light when viewed most V. SUFFICIENCY ANALYSES favorable to the the State intro- Legal Sufficiency A. duced direct evidence that Rios lived out- Viewing the in light County most side from Nueces December prosecution, favorable to the through February the record at least 2002. The (1) properly shows that Rios regis- supports-four verified his evidence also inferences: April tration on but does show Rios returned to and lived Nueces that he verified registration County beginning his time no later than (2) returned, 2002; thereafter. The absence of a record indi- at the time he he cating County verification of registration af- intended to live Nueces more (3) ter 2001 is days; sufficient than seven he continued live County days, Rios failed to than do so. See Tex.R. Nueces more seven Evid. hospital charged I find the records relevant with elements of the offense the State was (1) respect prove: to three Nueces inferences. The first infer- Rios resided in ence, majority, County days as noted is that Rios for more than seven after his County Februaiy resided in Nueces on return between 15 and However, along with evidence that he intended to reside in Nueces May County County days Rios was at the time arrested Nueces for more than seven support records also he failed to confirm his within regard days two more other return. inferences with seven of his *10 Jackson, I defer to on 443 U.S. 326. would through the date of his arrest there 31, 2002; conflicting fact finder’s resolution of May register he did not id.; Johnson, registra- initial evidence. See see also again his address after his at 9. I cannot conclude that alleged on 2001. The offense tion guilt obviously of Rios’s is so proved by the State —that Rios did not State’s as to undermine confidence in the days seven of his return weak report within Zuliani, fact finder’s determination. See February 15 and between Viewing at 593. the evidence 2002 to Nueces where he resided I factu- neutrally, for more than seven would hold the evidence and intended reside the conviction. days allegations ally support with the sufficient —conformed Johnson, indictment, the stat- See 6. remained within limitations, ute of and occurred before the
presentment of the indictment. See Yza- VI. CONCLUSION guirre, disagree at 39. I Having chal- overruled required prove the exact appeal, judg- on I affirm the lenges would Corpus date on which Rios returned to ment of the trial court. Christi. directly and
Every point fact need not
independently guilt. to Rios’s See Vander
bilt, com at 716. Given the of all the in
bined and cumulative force circumstances, however, I
criminating sufficient legally
would hold the evidence that Rios was to but to establish LAYTON, Appellant, Eleanore failed to with local law enforce authority days of his ment within seven Corpus return MORTGAGE NATIONSBANC Thus, I address Rios’s See id. also would CORPORATION, factual-sufficiency arguments. Appellee. No. 13-02-608-CV. Sufficiency
B. Factual Texas, recited above addition to the evidence Appeals Court of analysis, the record my legal-sufficiency Christi-Edinburg. at trial that Rios shows that Petri testified July continuously had with her since his lived 15, 2004. Sept. Rehearing Overruled and was with prison release from her at po- further testified that the
2002. Petri inquired
lice officers never about Rios’s signing her into
whereabouts and misled stating longer her son no lived
document her. of historical facts
Faced with a record inferences, pre- supports conflicting fact
sume that the trier of resolved prosecution.
conflicts favor of See