Orlando Ochoa Rodriguez v. State of Texas
Opinion
Opinion filed August 7, 2008
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-07-00079-CR
ORLANDO OCHOA RODRIGUEZ, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 142nd District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR31479
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The jury convicted appellant of failing to comply with sex offender registration requirements. The trial court assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of two years. Appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction in two issues. We affirm.
Background Facts
As a result of a California conviction for committing a lewd act with a child, appellant was required to register as a sex offender. Appellant registered with the Midland Police Department on July 7, 2003, when he moved to Midland from California. He listed an address of 1936 English Drive when he initially registered with the Midland Police Department. Appellant notified the police department on April 14, 2004, of a change of address to 401 East Hickory.
On May 26, 2005, Officer James Williams of the Midland Police Department visited 401 East Hickory for the purpose of verifying appellant=s address. Officer Williams spoke with appellant=s sister, Leticia Madrid, at the address. Madrid advised Officer Williams that appellant was not at the address and that he had not lived there for at least a month. Officer Williams testified that Madrid also told him that she had no idea where he could find appellant. Officer Williams asked Madrid to complete a Afield witness statement@ wherein she stated as follows: AOrlando Rodriguez does not live at 401 E. Hickory as of April 05.@
Madrid testified at trial that appellant had lived at 401 East Hickory from time to time during the period of time that Officer Williams contacted her. She further testified that appellant was living several different places at the time because he was coming back and forth between 401 East Hickory, his girlfriend=s apartment, and a job site that was located down the street from 401 East Hickory. When questioned by appellant=s trial counsel on cross-examination, Madrid testified that she lived in a portion of the house that had a separate outside entrance and that it was not uncommon for her not to see her brother when he was living there.
Ann Denison is appellant=s girlfriend. She testified that she lived at 401 East Hickory on May 26, 2005, and that appellant also lived at 401 East Hickory on that date. Denison stated that appellant was working on a construction project located close to 401 East Hickory and that he would stay at night at the construction project to guard it but that he would return to 401 East Hickory to shower each day. She further testified that she moved out of the house at 401 East Hickory in August 2005 but that appellant continued to reside there until September 2006. Additional witnesses testified that appellant worked at the nearby construction project and that he lived at 401 East Hickory during this period.
Standard of Review
In order to determine if the evidence is legally sufficient, we must review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and 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 (1979); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). To determine if the evidence is factually sufficient, the appellate court reviews all of the evidence in a neutral light. Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (overruling in part Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 10‑11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 407‑08 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Then, the reviewing court determines whether the evidence supporting the verdict is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or whether the verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Watson, 204 S.W.3d at 414‑15; Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 10‑11. The jury, as the finder of fact, is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the witnesses= testimony. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 36.13 (Vernon 2007), art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979).
Analysis
Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure[1] outlines the reporting requirements for persons convicted of a sexual offense. Grant v. State, 154 S.W.3d 684, 686 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref=
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Orlando Ochoa Rodriguez v. State of Texas (Orlando Ochoa Rodriguez v. State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.