registration requirement in Texas

2003See Anderson , 62 S.W.3d at 307 ; Thompson , 59 S.W.3d at 807 ; Ducker , 45 S.W.3d at 795-96 ; but see Shankle v. State , 59 S.W.3d 756, 762 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. granted) (holding that the registration requirement is so serious that the trial court’s failure to admonish the defendant regarding registration affected a substantial right and was reversible error).

2003See Anderson , 62 S.W.3d at 307 ; Thompson , 59 S.W.3d at 807 ; Ducker , 45 S.W.3d at 795-96 ; but see Shankle v. State , 59 S.W.3d 756, 762 (Tex. App.--Austin 2001, pet. granted) (holding that the registration requirement is so serious that the trial court's failure to admonish the defendant regarding registration affected a substantial right and was reversible error).

2012As did the Court of Criminal Appeals in Anderson, 182 S.W.3d at 921 , we have considered the record in this case as a whole, and having done so, we find fair assurance the trial court’s failure to admonish appellant of the registration requirement did not affect a substantial right involving his decision to plead guilty.

2012As did the Court of Criminal Appeals in Anderson, 182 S.W.3d at 921 , we have considered the record in this case as a whole, and having done so, we find fair assurance the trial court's failure to admonish appellant of the registration requirement did not affect a substantial right involving his decision to plead guilty.

2012See Lopez, 71 S.W.3d at 516 ; Alvarez, 63 S.W.3d at 583 ; Anderson, 62 S.W.3d at 307 .

2012See Mitschke, 129 S.W.3d at 136 ; Alvarez, 63 S.W.3d at 583 ; Thompson, 59 S.W.3d at 806-07 ; Ducker, 45 S.W.3d at 793-96 ; see also Lopez, 71 S.W.3d at 516 .

2003See Anderson , 62 S.W.3d at 307 ; Thompson , 59 S.W.3d at 807 ; Ducker , 45 S.W.3d at 795-96 ; but see Shankle v. State , 59 S.W.3d 756, 762 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. granted) (holding that the registration requirement is so serious that the trial court’s failure to admonish the defendant regarding registration affected a substantial right and was reversible error).

2003See Anderson , 62 S.W.3d at 307 ; Thompson , 59 S.W.3d at 807 ; Ducker , 45 S.W.3d at 795-96 ; but see Shankle v. State , 59 S.W.3d 756, 762 (Tex. App.--Austin 2001, pet. granted) (holding that the registration requirement is so serious that the trial court's failure to admonish the defendant regarding registration affected a substantial right and was reversible error).

2003See Anderson , 62 S.W.3d at 307 ; Thompson , 59 S.W.3d at 807 ; Ducker , 45 S.W.3d at 795-96 ; but see Shankle v. State , 59 S.W.3d 756, 762 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. granted) (holding that the registration requirement is so serious that the trial court’s failure to admonish the defendant regarding registration affected a substantial right and was reversible error).

2003See Anderson , 62 S.W.3d at 307 ; Thompson , 59 S.W.3d at 807 ; Ducker , 45 S.W.3d at 795-96 ; but see Shankle v. State , 59 S.W.3d 756, 762 (Tex. App.--Austin 2001, pet. granted) (holding that the registration requirement is so serious that the trial court's failure to admonish the defendant regarding registration affected a substantial right and was reversible error).

2001Ruffin v. State, 3 S.W.3d 140, 144 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. refd) (holding that the requirement to register as a sex offender has no impact on the range of punishment and, therefore, is not a direct consequence of a plea of guilty to the offense of sexual assault); Guzman v. State, 993 S.W.2d 232, 236 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1999, pet. refd) (holding that failing to admonish a defendant on his statutory duty to register as a sex offender did not invalidate the guilty plea); In re B.G.M., 929 S.W.2d 604, 606-07 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1996, no pet.) (holding that the possibilit

2001Ruffin v. State , 3 S.W.3d 140, 144-45 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d) (holding that the failure to inform the accused about the need to register as a sex offender did not make the plea involuntary); Guzman v. State , 993 S.W.2d 232, 236 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, pet. ref'd) (holding same); In re B.G.M ., 929 S.W.2d 604, 606-07 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1996, no pet.) (holding that the possibility of required sex offender registration is not a mandatory admonishment in a juvenile proceeding because the registration requirement is a remedial and collateral consequence of the

2012See Lopez, 71 S.W.3d at 516 ; Alvarez, 63 S.W.3d at 583 ; Anderson, 62 S.W.3d at 307 .

2012See Mitschke, 129 S.W.3d at 136 ; Alvarez, 63 S.W.3d at 583 ; Thompson, 59 S.W.3d at 806-07 ; Ducker, 45 S.W.3d at 793-96 ; see also Lopez, 71 S.W.3d at 516 .

2006See Anderson v. State, 182 S.W.3d 914, 921 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (after considering the record as a whole, court concluded no substantial right involving decision to plead guilty was affected by the trial court’s error in failing to admonish defendant of the registration requirement for convicted sex offenders; thus, the error was held harmless); Mitschke v. State, 129 S.W.3d 130, 136 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (concluding that failure to admonish defendant as to sex-offender registration requirement did not violate his due process rights).

2006App. 2006) (after considering the record as a whole, court concluded no substantial right involving decision to plead guilty was affected by the trial class=Section3> court’s error in failing to admonish defendant of the registration requirement for convicted sex offenders; thus, the error was held harmless); Mitschke v. State, 129 S.W.3d 130, 136 (Tex. Crim.

2009See Druktenis , 135 N.M. at 241 , 86 P.3d at 1068 ; Hood , 790 N.Y.S.2d at 758–59.

2009See Druktenis , 135 N.M. at 241 , 86 P.3d at 1068 ; Hood , 790 N.Y.S.2d at 758–59.

2009See id. § 311.025(b) (stating that “amendments shall be harmonized, if possible, so that effect may be given to each”); cf. 20 Saunders v. State, 49 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001, pet. ref’d) (holding that two statutes expressly differing on whether a deaf juror could be accompanied by an interpreter during deliberations were irreconcilable).

2009See id. § 311.025(b) (stating that “amendments shall be harmonized, if possible, so that effect may be given to each”); cf. Saunders v. State , 49 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001, pet. ref’d) (holding that two statutes expressly differing on whether a deaf juror could be accompanied by an interpreter during deliberations were irreconcilable).

2007And, as we stated in Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), a silent record supports the inference that the appellant did not know the consequences of his plea.

2007And, as we stated in Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), a silent record supports the inference that the appellant did not know the consequences of his plea.

2001Ruffin v. State, 3 S.W.3d 140, 144 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. refd) (holding that the requirement to register as a sex offender has no impact on the range of punishment and, therefore, is not a direct consequence of a plea of guilty to the offense of sexual assault); Guzman v. State, 993 S.W.2d 232, 236 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1999, pet. refd) (holding that failing to admonish a defendant on his statutory duty to register as a sex offender did not invalidate the guilty plea); In re B.G.M., 929 S.W.2d 604, 606-07 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1996, no pet.) (holding that the possibilit

2001Ruffin v. State , 3 S.W.3d 140, 144-45 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d) (holding that the failure to inform the accused about the need to register as a sex offender did not make the plea involuntary); Guzman v. State , 993 S.W.2d 232, 236 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, pet. ref'd) (holding same); In re B.G.M ., 929 S.W.2d 604, 606-07 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1996, no pet.) (holding that the possibility of required sex offender registration is not a mandatory admonishment in a juvenile proceeding because the registration requirement is a remedial and collateral consequence of the

2003See Anderson , 62 S.W.3d at 307 ; Thompson , 59 S.W.3d at 807 ; Ducker , 45 S.W.3d at 795-96 ; but see Shankle v. State , 59 S.W.3d 756, 762 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. granted) (holding that the registration requirement is so serious that the trial court’s failure to admonish the defendant regarding registration affected a substantial right and was reversible error).

2003See Anderson , 62 S.W.3d at 307 ; Thompson , 59 S.W.3d at 807 ; Ducker , 45 S.W.3d at 795-96 ; but see Shankle v. State , 59 S.W.3d 756, 762 (Tex. App.--Austin 2001, pet. granted) (holding that the registration requirement is so serious that the trial court's failure to admonish the defendant regarding registration affected a substantial right and was reversible error).

2018Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60, 65, 67, 79 (Tex. Crim.

2011See Rodriguez v. State , 45 S.W.3d 685, 688 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 2001), aff’d , 93 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. Crim.

2002See Alvarez, 63 S.W.3d at 583 ; Anderson, 62 S.W.3d at 307 ; see also Carranza, 980 S.W.2d at 658 1 ; Torres v. State, 59 S.W.3d 365, 368 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Thompson v. State, 59 S.W.3d 802, 807 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. filed); Ducker v. State, 45 S.W.3d 791, 793-96 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.).

2001Id.

2025Co. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154, 158 (Tex. 2016). 59 Tawakkol v. Vasquez, supra, 87 F.3d at 719 n. 3 (“[T]he [U.S.] district court determined that the Secretary of Defense lacked authority to designate the crime Tawakkol was convicted of as a sex offense under SORNA.

2025Co. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154, 158 (Tex. 2016). 59 Tawakkol v. Vasquez, supra, 87 F.3d at 719 n. 3 (“[T]he [U.S.] district court determined that the Secretary of Defense lacked authority to designate the crime Tawakkol was convicted of as a sex offense under SORNA.

2021See Febus, 542 S.W.3d at 573 . 3.

2018See Febus, 542 S.W.3d at 573 .

2014See Reynolds, 385 S.W.3d at 95-101 .

2014See Reynolds, 385 S.W.3d at 95-101 .

2011See Rodriguez v. State , 45 S.W.3d 685, 688 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 2001), aff’d , 93 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. Crim.

2002The court overruled the point of error, explaining that “because the registration requirement is remedial in nature, i.e., a statute enacted for the advancement of the public good, it does not impose ‘punishment’ for constitutional purposes and is not susceptible to an ex post facto claim.” Id. at 689 (citations omitted).

2009The Code Construction Act and Reconciliation of the Two Bills In his first point, appellant asserts that because the legislature passed House Bill 867 (which, as indicated above, did not contain any reference to online solicitation of a minor as an offense requiring sex offender registration) after it passed House Bill 2228 (which did specifically contain such a reference), and because the two bills are allegedly irreconcilable, House Bill 867 prevails; thus, no statutory authority existed for the trial court’s imposition of the registration requirement in this case. (footnote: 3) Standard of

2009The Code Construction Act and Reconciliation of the Two Bills In his first point, appellant asserts that because the legislature passed House Bill 867 (which, as indicated above, did not contain any reference to online solicitation of a minor as an offense requiring sex offender registration) after it passed House Bill 2228 (which did specifically contain such a reference), and because the two bills are allegedly irreconcilable, House Bill 867 prevails; thus, no statutory authority existed for the trial court’s imposition of the registration requirement in this case. 3 Standard of Review When

2009The Code Construction Act and Reconciliation of the Two Bills In his first point, appellant asserts that because the legislature passed House Bill 867 (which, as indicated above, did not contain any reference to online solicitation of a minor as an offense requiring sex offender registration) after it passed House Bill 2228 (which did specifically contain such a reference), and because the two bills are allegedly irreconcilable, House Bill 867 prevails; thus, no statutory authority existed for the trial court’s imposition of the registration requirement in this case. (footnote: 3) Standard of

2009The Code Construction Act and Reconciliation of the Two Bills In his first point, appellant asserts that because the legislature passed House Bill 867 (which, as indicated above, did not contain any reference to online solicitation of a minor as an offense requiring sex offender registration) after it passed House Bill 2228 (which did specifically contain such a reference), and because the two bills are allegedly irreconcilable, House Bill 867 prevails; thus, no statutory authority existed for the trial court’s imposition of the registration requirement in this case. 3 Standard of Review When

2004White v. State , 988 S.W.2d 277, 279 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, no pet.).

2001See Saldana v. State, 33 S.W.3d 70, 71 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.); see also White v. State, 988 S.W.2d 277, 279 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1999, no pet.).

2001Ruffin v. State, 3 S.W.3d 140, 144 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. refd) (holding that the requirement to register as a sex offender has no impact on the range of punishment and, therefore, is not a direct consequence of a plea of guilty to the offense of sexual assault); Guzman v. State, 993 S.W.2d 232, 236 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1999, pet. refd) (holding that failing to admonish a defendant on his statutory duty to register as a sex offender did not invalidate the guilty plea); In re B.G.M., 929 S.W.2d 604, 606-07 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1996, no pet.) (holding that the possibilit

2001Ruffin v. State , 3 S.W.3d 140, 144-45 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d) (holding that the failure to inform the accused about the need to register as a sex offender did not make the plea involuntary); Guzman v. State , 993 S.W.2d 232, 236 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, pet. ref'd) (holding same); In re B.G.M ., 929 S.W.2d 604, 606-07 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1996, no pet.) (holding that the possibility of required sex offender registration is not a mandatory admonishment in a juvenile proceeding because the registration requirement is a remedial and collateral consequence of the

2022In other words, Flores claims that his failure to comply with the registration requirement of informing police of his new address was 2 In Robinson v. State, 466 S.W.3d 166, 170-71 (Tex. Crim.

2020After the court of appeals rendered its decision in this case, R.R.S. successfully completed his probation 8 requirements and the trial court excused him from registering as a sex offender. 9 See also State v. Collazo, 264 S.W.3d 121, 128 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d) (citing Anderson, 182 S.W.3d at 918 (“The failure to admonish a defendant as to the non-punitive consequence of mandatory sex offender registration does not violate the due process clause or render his plea involuntary.”)); Ducker v. State, 45 S.W.3d 791, 796 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.) (“[W]e hold that th

2020After the court of appeals rendered its decision in this case, R.R.S. successfully completed his probation 8 requirements and the trial court excused him from registering as a sex offender. 9 See also State v. Collazo, 264 S.W.3d 121, 128 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d) (citing Anderson, 182 S.W.3d at 918 (“The failure to admonish a defendant as to the non-punitive consequence of mandatory sex offender registration does not violate the due process clause or render his plea involuntary.”)); Ducker v. State, 45 S.W.3d 791, 796 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.) (“[W]e hold that th

2018To hold as the State urges would lead to a conclusion in this case that there were three separately calculable deadlines for Williams to file his notice of appeal, each dependent on the claim raised and each based on actions taken by the trial court during its plenary power: (1) ninety days after the trial court imposed sentence in open court for claims arising from his conviction of the lesser-included offense; (2) thirty days after the trial court’s entry of the first nunc pro tunc order for claims arising from the registration requirement; and (3) thirty days after the trial court’s entry o