IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11-00252-CR
JAMAL LA-MONTE ROGERS, Appellant v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 82nd District Court Falls County, Texas Trial Court No. 8945
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jamal La-Monte Rogers was convicted of failure to comply with the registration
requirements of the Sex Offender Registration Program, a third degree felony. TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.102 (West 2006). Specifically, Rogers failed to comply
with the change of address provision. Id. art. 62.055(a). He pled true to an
enhancement paragraph and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Because the evidence
is sufficient to support Rogers’ conviction, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Chapter 62, the Sex Offender Registration Program statute, is not one of the
easiest statutes to understand or apply. Recognizing some of the problems, the
legislature has attempted a comprehensive rewrite; several times. See Reynolds v. State,
___ S.W.3d ___, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7185 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 23, 2012, no pet.)
(publish). In such a case, it is critical to understand the structure of the statute and what
the elements of a violation are as well as the alternative manner and means of violating
the statute. The specific provision violated should be clearly alleged in the indictment
and preferably in the judgment as well. We note that rather than referencing the statute
found to have been violated in the judgment, the judgment merely references the
statute that provides the punishment range for the offense.
To properly apply the statute, you must first determine if the statute applies, and
if so, then which version. Id. Finally, you must determine the manner and means by
which the statute was violated. See Young v. State, 341 S.W.3d 417, 427 (Tex. Crim. App.
2011).
Generally, the statute applies only to those persons with a reportable conviction
or adjudication occurring on or after September 1, 1970. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
art. 62.002(a) (West 2006). A "reportable conviction or adjudication" means a conviction
or adjudication that is a conviction for or an adjudication for, among other things,
aggravated sexual assault. Id. art. 62.001(5)(A). A person who has a reportable
conviction shall register with the local law enforcement authority where the person
Rogers v. State Page 2 resides or intends to reside for more than seven days. Id. art. 62.051(a). There is no
question on this record or raised in the appeal that Rogers had a reportable violation
and was thus required to register as a sex offender for life.
A person commits the offense of failure to comply with the registration
requirements of Chapter 62 if the person is required to register and fails to comply with
any requirement of the Chapter. Id. art. 62.102(a). Rogers was indicted for the failure
“to report defendant’s change of address within seven days of a defendant’s actual
change of residence.” (sic). It is not clear from the indictment which manner and
means of violating the statute the State was relying upon. The indictment could have
been for the failure to report an intended change in his address, id. art. 62.055(a) (first
sentence) or that Rogers failed to report “not later than the seventh day after changing
the address… in person to the local law enforcement” in which his new residence is
located. Id. (second sentence) (or for some other violation of the statute). Either failure
is a violation of the registration requirements for a person who is required to register.
Although the indictment was not clear which provision Rogers allegedly violated, since
the only evidence of a new address was in another county, there was no evidence that
he violated the provision in the second sentence of the statute in Falls County. Thus, we
assume the State sought to prove Rogers violated the first sentence by failing to notify
the reporting officer for the City of Marlin, not less than seven days prior to his
anticipated move date, that he intended to change his address.
Rogers v. State Page 3 Under that provision, if a person who is required to register pursuant to Chapter
62 intends to change his address, he shall, not later than the seventh day before the
intended change, report in person to the local law enforcement authority designated as
the person's primary registration authority and provide the authority with the person's
anticipated move date and new address. Id. art. 62.055(a).
In this appeal, it is undisputed that Rogers was convicted of aggravated sexual
assault on September 28, 2006 and, thus, was subject to the statute. It is also undisputed
that Rogers timely registered with the registration authority for the City of Marlin, the
administrative assistant for the Chief of Police, in compliance with article 62.051. The
dispute is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the allegation that Rogers
failed to comply with the provisions of article 62.055 by not reporting a change in his
address before that change occurred.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we view all
the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560
(1979); Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Brooks v. State, 323
S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.). And if the record supports
conflicting inferences, we must presume that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in
favor of the prosecution and therefore defer to that determination. Jackson, 443 U.S. at
Rogers v. State Page 4 326. The factfinder is entitled to judge the credibility of witnesses and can choose to
believe all, some, or none of the testimony presented by the parties. Chambers v. State,
805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Further, a factfinder is permitted to draw
reasonable inferences from the facts as long as they are supported by the evidence
presented at trial. Merritt, 368 S.W.3d at 525.
Rogers’ argument centers on the meaning of the word reside as used in article
65.051(a). He contends reside is synonymous with the word domicile which means a
permanent home to which, whenever absent, a person has the intent to return. And
because, he argues, the two words are synonymous, Rogers urges us to find the
evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to
permanently change his residence. The legislature, however, used only the term
residence with reference to the reported address.1 We hold that the term residence is
not synonymous with the term domicile and use the common meaning of residence
since it is not defined by the statute to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence.
As stated, it was undisputed that Rogers registered in the City of Marlin as
required by article 62.051(a). For purposes of the statute, that is where Rogers resided.
The word reside is included in that particular provision. The State sought to prove
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11-00252-CR
JAMAL LA-MONTE ROGERS, Appellant v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 82nd District Court Falls County, Texas Trial Court No. 8945
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jamal La-Monte Rogers was convicted of failure to comply with the registration
requirements of the Sex Offender Registration Program, a third degree felony. TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.102 (West 2006). Specifically, Rogers failed to comply
with the change of address provision. Id. art. 62.055(a). He pled true to an
enhancement paragraph and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Because the evidence
is sufficient to support Rogers’ conviction, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Chapter 62, the Sex Offender Registration Program statute, is not one of the
easiest statutes to understand or apply. Recognizing some of the problems, the
legislature has attempted a comprehensive rewrite; several times. See Reynolds v. State,
___ S.W.3d ___, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7185 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 23, 2012, no pet.)
(publish). In such a case, it is critical to understand the structure of the statute and what
the elements of a violation are as well as the alternative manner and means of violating
the statute. The specific provision violated should be clearly alleged in the indictment
and preferably in the judgment as well. We note that rather than referencing the statute
found to have been violated in the judgment, the judgment merely references the
statute that provides the punishment range for the offense.
To properly apply the statute, you must first determine if the statute applies, and
if so, then which version. Id. Finally, you must determine the manner and means by
which the statute was violated. See Young v. State, 341 S.W.3d 417, 427 (Tex. Crim. App.
2011).
Generally, the statute applies only to those persons with a reportable conviction
or adjudication occurring on or after September 1, 1970. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
art. 62.002(a) (West 2006). A "reportable conviction or adjudication" means a conviction
or adjudication that is a conviction for or an adjudication for, among other things,
aggravated sexual assault. Id. art. 62.001(5)(A). A person who has a reportable
conviction shall register with the local law enforcement authority where the person
Rogers v. State Page 2 resides or intends to reside for more than seven days. Id. art. 62.051(a). There is no
question on this record or raised in the appeal that Rogers had a reportable violation
and was thus required to register as a sex offender for life.
A person commits the offense of failure to comply with the registration
requirements of Chapter 62 if the person is required to register and fails to comply with
any requirement of the Chapter. Id. art. 62.102(a). Rogers was indicted for the failure
“to report defendant’s change of address within seven days of a defendant’s actual
change of residence.” (sic). It is not clear from the indictment which manner and
means of violating the statute the State was relying upon. The indictment could have
been for the failure to report an intended change in his address, id. art. 62.055(a) (first
sentence) or that Rogers failed to report “not later than the seventh day after changing
the address… in person to the local law enforcement” in which his new residence is
located. Id. (second sentence) (or for some other violation of the statute). Either failure
is a violation of the registration requirements for a person who is required to register.
Although the indictment was not clear which provision Rogers allegedly violated, since
the only evidence of a new address was in another county, there was no evidence that
he violated the provision in the second sentence of the statute in Falls County. Thus, we
assume the State sought to prove Rogers violated the first sentence by failing to notify
the reporting officer for the City of Marlin, not less than seven days prior to his
anticipated move date, that he intended to change his address.
Rogers v. State Page 3 Under that provision, if a person who is required to register pursuant to Chapter
62 intends to change his address, he shall, not later than the seventh day before the
intended change, report in person to the local law enforcement authority designated as
the person's primary registration authority and provide the authority with the person's
anticipated move date and new address. Id. art. 62.055(a).
In this appeal, it is undisputed that Rogers was convicted of aggravated sexual
assault on September 28, 2006 and, thus, was subject to the statute. It is also undisputed
that Rogers timely registered with the registration authority for the City of Marlin, the
administrative assistant for the Chief of Police, in compliance with article 62.051. The
dispute is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the allegation that Rogers
failed to comply with the provisions of article 62.055 by not reporting a change in his
address before that change occurred.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we view all
the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560
(1979); Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Brooks v. State, 323
S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.). And if the record supports
conflicting inferences, we must presume that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in
favor of the prosecution and therefore defer to that determination. Jackson, 443 U.S. at
Rogers v. State Page 4 326. The factfinder is entitled to judge the credibility of witnesses and can choose to
believe all, some, or none of the testimony presented by the parties. Chambers v. State,
805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Further, a factfinder is permitted to draw
reasonable inferences from the facts as long as they are supported by the evidence
presented at trial. Merritt, 368 S.W.3d at 525.
Rogers’ argument centers on the meaning of the word reside as used in article
65.051(a). He contends reside is synonymous with the word domicile which means a
permanent home to which, whenever absent, a person has the intent to return. And
because, he argues, the two words are synonymous, Rogers urges us to find the
evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to
permanently change his residence. The legislature, however, used only the term
residence with reference to the reported address.1 We hold that the term residence is
not synonymous with the term domicile and use the common meaning of residence
since it is not defined by the statute to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence.
As stated, it was undisputed that Rogers registered in the City of Marlin as
required by article 62.051(a). For purposes of the statute, that is where Rogers resided.
The word reside is included in that particular provision. The State sought to prove
1 We note that there is a wealth of English language references to a person’s address. Words such as domicile and residence are sometimes used without reference to the legal distinctions. Further, there is a fair amount of other terminology that is used, depending on the formality of the circumstances such as where a person calls home, where a person sleeps, where a person lives, and where a person stays. Here, we deal only with a person’s “residence” address as used in the statute in this proceeding, and Rogers’ failure to report a change of that registered address.
Rogers v. State Page 5 Rogers violated article 62.055, the change of address provision, which required Rogers
to report to the City his change of address before or after the change. We note that implicit
in the statute is that the registered address is the person’s primary residence in that it
provides for only one such registration but also provides for registration of temporary
locations. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.059(a) (West 2006) (on at least three
occasions during a month, a person spends more than 48 consecutive hours in a location
other than where registered).
Rogers’ registered address was with his uncle, Kevin. Darrel Allen, Marlin’s
Chief of Police, visited Kevin’s home on October 28, 2010 in search of Rogers. Kevin
told Allen that Rogers did not live there and that Rogers was living with his girlfriend
in Waco. When asked how long it had been since Rogers lived there, Kevin replied that
Rogers had left sometime in July or August. Further, documents were introduced
which indicated that on October 31, 2010, Kevin reported to Ernesto Alvarez, Rogers’
parole officer, that Rogers no longer lived at Kevin’s address. Rogers argues we cannot
consider this testimony as evidence because it was admitted over objection. This
testimony recited, however, was admitted without objection.2 At trial, Kevin denied
telling anyone that Rogers no longer lived at his registered address. In this trial before
the bench, the trial court, as the factfinder, could choose which testimony was credible.
2There was similar evidence offered at other times during the trial to which objections were made. However, we reference and rely upon only unobjected to evidence in the record.
Rogers v. State Page 6 The evidence established that Rogers had not been living at his registered
address for three to four months. Viewing the evidence under the appropriate
standard, we find it sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rogers failed to
report to the City his change of address not later than the seventh day before the
intended change. Thus, Rogers’ sole issue is overruled.
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed December 13, 2012 Do not publish [CR25]
Rogers v. State Page 7