Bobby Joe Cosper v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/17/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 CR-09-0747 Bobby J o e C o s p e r v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Morgan C i r c u i t (CC-08-1414) Court PER C U R I A M . The violating Ala. of appellant, Bobby Joe Cosper, t h e Community N o t i f i c a t i o n to transfer convicted of A c t , §15-20-20 e t s e q . , Code 1 9 7 5 ( " t h e CNA"), b y f a i l i n g h i sintent was to give h i sresidence, timely a violation notice of § CR-09-0747 15-20-23, agencies and The of to pursuant residence released two his tended to of CNA. of show t h a t a feet As register accordance twice 2,000 law-enforcement place imprisonment. In to residence, i n 2001 second-degree r e q u i r e d to register and report with year, of a a result as a sex the to rape CNA, not Cosper and of Cosper establish school or to r e l o c a t e and w i t h i n 30 State from presented the of his evidence Montgomery 2008, and Montgomery days have the move. agency Sheriff's that Detention t h a t u p o n h i s r e l e a s e he County that child was any care agency approve the Cosper was Facility on 2 indicating County was offender to n o t i f y the a p p r o p r i a t e law-enforcement intended a 1 counts years' within O c t o b e r 10, the the location The 15 to facility, to to verify evidence C o s p e r was to required to 15-20-24. guilty conviction new § State's sentenced when he failing semiannually violation pleaded for registered with Department. Cosper was C o s p e r was a l s o c o n v i c t e d o f v i o l a t i n g § 1 5 - 2 0 - 2 6 ( a ) , b y knowingly e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e s i d e n c e w i t h i n 2,000 f e e t o f a s c h o o l . H o w e v e r , C o s p e r d o e s n o t c h a l l e n g e t h i s c o n v i c t i o n on appeal. 1 T h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s as offenders are s p e c i f i c a l l y 1975. 2 they r e l a t e to a d u l t c r i m i n a l sex s e t o u t i n § 15-20-23, A l a . Code 2 CR-09-0747 photographed, Alabama's fingerprinted, and completed a Form -¬ a d u l t - s e x - o f f e n d e r - r e g i s t r a t i o n form. Cathy Little, an S h e r i f f ' s Department, employee of the Montgomery County t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had p r e v i o u s l y as t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c l e r k f o r M o n t g o m e r y C o u n t y , her 47 worked t h a t i t was duty to m a i n t a i n records r e l a t e d to sex offenders r e s i d i n g within and the c i t y their testified released limits, annual that on and and Cosper October she v e r i f i e d semiannual was 10, that brought 2008, that office he restrictions that reviewed f o r sex time Cosper Buena his information notification reside and Little t o the Morgan County an e m p l o y e e testified from i n Morgan that on Montgomery County. "State regarding address e x e c u t e d "Form 4 7 . " intended to reside i n D e c a t u r , Morgan paperwork, Cindy Crowell, Department, offenders, a was f i n g e r p r i n t e d and information i n d i c a t e d t h a t he Vista Circle completed the Little a f t e r he completed 4 7 F o r m . " A t t h a t t i m e , s h e s a i d , C o s p e r was photographed, addresses verifications. to her and their County. testified, Sheriff's at After she At 1517 Cosper faxed the Department. of the Morgan County S h e r i f f ' s October County She 10, that further 3 2008, Cosper testified she received intended to that Cosper CR-09-0747 did not report his release Franklin Cosper after her to the s h e r i f f ' s from j a i l with and t h a t t h e Morgan had f a i l e d that prohibited school. address Crowell seven days o f Investigator Ana Department that further testified t o r e g i s t e r he informed a t 422 4 t h Avenue S o u t h w e s t because i t was within 2,000 that -- feet a of a 3 David Williams that Sheriff's forfailing he h a d b e e n l i v i n g within she i n f o r m e d County to report. C o s p e r was a r r e s t e d office he worked explained that as of the Decatur P o l i c e Department a sex-offender-registration sex offenders first register with testified agent. He t h e Morgan County S h e r i f f ' s Department and a r e then d i r e c t e d t o t h e C i t y of Decatur city P o l i c e Department limits. Specifically, i f they he live within the Decatur testified: " F i r s t and f o r e m o s t , they r e g i s t e r t h r o u g h Morgan County and a f t e r Morgan County t h e y ' r e d i r e c t e d t o the C i t y of Decatur i f they l i v e w i t h i n t h e C i t y o f Decatur or our j u r i s d i c t i o n . When they are notified, they come t o t h e D e c a t u r City Police Department a n d we f i l l out the sex offender r e g i s t r a t i o n t h a t we're r e q u i r e d t o f i l l o u t by t h e State of Alabama to comply with the 2005 notification a c t and go down each and every p a r a g r a p h i n t h a t , and they a r e r e i n f o r c e d . The The r e c o r d i s u n c l e a r whether t h e a c t u a l a d d r e s s where C o s p e r l i v e d w i t h h i s g i r l f r i e n d was 422 4 t h A v e n u e S o u t h w e s t o r 4 2 2 4 t h A v e n u e N o r t h w e s t o r 622 4 t h A v e n u e S o u t h w e s t . 3 4 CR-09-0747 same t h i n g t h a t t h e y ' v e j u s t d o n e a t t h e c o u n t y a r e r e i n f o r c e d [ s i c ] , and a t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r time t h e y i n i t i a l a n d s i g n w h e r e i t n e e d s t o be s i g n e d . We take a second s e t o f f i n g e r p r i n t s a n d we also p h o t o g r a p h them and m a i n t a i n our r e g i s t e r at the c i t y l e v e l b e c a u s e we a r e r e q u i r e d t o m a i n t a i n a b o o k t o be p r e s e n t e d t o any c i t i z e n t h a t so d e s i r e s to see t h a t . " (R. 99-100.) In notification from residing at traveled to that that Cosper late 1517 October, Investigator Buena Vista address Officer Franklin Circle on O c t o b e r had been t h e r e but that Williams that received Cosper was i n Decatur. Williams 29, 2008, and discovered he was no longer at that Investigator Ana residence. On October Franklin rights and Circle 2008, and who informed the to told he at Miranda Williams. from then 4th officers r e g i s t e r i n Morgan 4 Cosper p o l i c e that address that resided 2008, Officer Cosper Vista 30, Avenue that County v. A r i z o n a , After with waiving he h a d l i v e d October moved met 11, i n with Northwest he was a t t h e 1517 2008, in Decatur. aware t h a t 436 he was 4 Buena to October his girlfriend, and t o i n f o r m 384 U.S. h i s Miranda 14, S.L., 5 Cosper required the s h e r i f f i f he (1966). S . L . was o n e o f t h e v i c t i m s i n C o s p e r ' s second-degreerape c o n v i c t i o n s . T o p r o t e c t h e r a n o n y m i t y , we a r e u s i n g h e r i n i t i a l s . S e e R u l e 5 2 , A l a . R. A p p . P. 5 5 CR-09-0747 moved f r o m thinking t h e Buena V i s t a a d d r e s s , b u t t h a t s t r a i g h t . " (R. 228-29.) girlfriend " i s the g i r l one of [ h i s ] v i c t i m s the v i c t i m t h a t was 229, 235.) Cosper The S t a t e ' s day-care further fourteen was second 1,920 evidence also showed is than 1,500 that h i s for. She i s conviction. She i s at the time of the o f f e n s e . " (R. arrested. e v i d e n c e f u r t h e r showed t h a t approximately stated t h a t [ h e ] went t o p r i s o n i n the rape f a c i l i t y was less He he " j u s t w a s n ' t a l i c e n s e d home- o p e r a t e d a t 207 4 t h A v e n u e N o r t h w e s t feet from that 422 4 t h Avenue Southwest. -¬ The t h e West D e c a t u r E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l feet from the 422 4 t h Avenue Southwest address. The defense mother. during that p r e s e n t e d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f S.L. S.L. t e s t i f i e d t h a t most of October t i m e she l i v e d Avenue located S.L.'s Northwest. a block mother Southwest with grandchildren. s h e a n d C o s p e r w e n t on a 2008. She also further testified f r o m h e r a d d r e s s a t 622 testified her She testified a t 622 4 t h A v e n u e S o u t h w e s t She that she husband, stated and sons, two 622 a school is Southwest. 4th Avenue daughters, s h e d i d n o t know who 6 during - - n o t 422 4 t h that at vacation that 4 t h Avenue lived S.L.'s lived and at the CR-09-0747 422 4 t h Avenue N o r t h w e s t did not l i v e Elementary with S.L. School address. She also i s located She indicated that testified that approximately Cosper West a block Decatur from her house. I. Cosper first Specifically, prohibition argues Cosper against ex post of the United and i m p o s e s an e x c e s s i v e The State for appellate circuit States that review CNA that facto i s unconstitutional. the CNA violates laws c o n t a i n e d the in Art.I, § C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h a t i t i s overbroad restraint and as a p p l i e d . Cosper because on i t s f a c e failed he to preserve failed to this raise issue i t i n the court. An a p p e l l a t e court i s l i m i t e d t o m a t t e r s t h a t were in and a d d r e s s e d by t h e t r i a l 2d 4 95 (Ala. the argues 10, asserts that ( A l a . 1991); Crim. App. court. Newsome v . Ross v. S t a t e , State, 570 So. 2d raised 581 So. 703, 717 1989). "Even constitutional issues must be properly preserved f o r appellate review. B r o w n v . S t a t e , 705 So. 2 d 871 , 875 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997 ) . 'Due process does not override the basic law of preservation, ... and t h e i s s u e must first be presented to the t r i a l court before i t will be r e v i e w e d on d i r e c t a p p e a l . ' B o g l i n v. S t a t e , 840 So. 2 d 9 2 6 , 929 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) . " 7 CR-09-0747 B y r d v. S t a t e , 10 S o . 3 d 6 2 4 , 6 2 6 - 2 7 Cosper d i d not challenge in the c i r c u i t court. argument below, appeal. See Crim. App. Court v. may State, appellate claim State, the review, This that 8 95 relying So. Court we would i t constitutes So. 2d 1038 find has p r e v i o u s l y 538 U.S. n o t an ex p o s t facto applied to the i n that appellant criminal sex intended to create 2006). App. any the 1042-43. 1214, offender. This a civil no this issue on 1223 ( A l a . 2004), Court held effect on the legislative intent of the a c t . S a l t e r v. State, 2007). 8 this was Court, o r as adult CNA and t h a t 895 that an the appellant 960 S o . 2 d 717 In Lee v. facially that scheme against concluded who punitive See a l s o law. law, e i t h e r regulatory See B o y d v . S t a t e , t h e CNA (2003), case, preserved constitutional facto App. 84 was negate present this upheld an ex p o s t ( A l a . Crim. on S m i t h v . Doe, have 2d o f t h e CNA i s s u e was p r o p e r l y CNA not review 2008). 2000). violation. a not 7 94 Moreover, assuming that t h i s for App. the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y B e c a u s e he d i d n o t f i r s t this Harris (Ala. Crim. was i t did that So. would 2d (Ala. Crim. 971 S o . 2 d 31 (Ala. at App. Civ. CR-09-0747 Here, that Cosper t h e CNA Cosper failed had failed to present a punitive t o meet effect h i s burden evidence to support h i s claims. ("Salter has t h e CNA has failed on evidence him. indicating Consequently, of presenting substantial See S a l t e r , 971 S o . 2 d a t 37 to present any e v i d e n c e indicating i s i n t e n d e d as a p u n i t i v e c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e that Salter f a i l e d to present s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n d i c a t i n g that the residency requirements o f t h e CNA him."). Accordingly, even this any Court, Cosper have a punitive i f the issue i s d u e no r e l i e f was on t h i s effect properly on before claim. II. Cosper next argues support his convictions weight of that convictions. judgment the evidence Cosper the evidence for violating was was t h e CNA insufficient preserved these o f a c q u i t t a l a n d f o r a new insufficient claims to and that the support his by moving for a trial. "In deciding whether there is sufficient e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t o f t h e j u r y and t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h e e v i d e n c e must be reviewed i n the light most favorable to the prosecution. Cumbo v . S t a t e , 368 S o . 2 d 871 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 7 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 368 S o . 2 d 877 ( A l a . 1979). C o n f l i c t i n g evidence presents a jury q u e s t i o n n o t s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w on a p p e a l , p r o v i d e d the s t a t e ' s evidence e s t a b l i s h e s a prima f a c i e case. Gunn v . S t a t e , 387 S o . 2 d 280 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . 9 to CR-09-0747 denied, 387 S o . 2 d 2 8 3 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . The trial court's denial of a motion f o r a judgment of a c q u i t t a l m u s t be r e v i e w e d by d e t e r m i n i n g whether there e x i s t e d legal evidence before the j u r y , at the t i m e t h e m o t i o n was made, f r o m w h i c h t h e j u r y b y fair inference could have found the appellant guilty. Thomas v . S t a t e , 363 S o . 2 d 1020 ( A l a . C r . App. 1978). In applying this standard, the appellate court will determine only i f legal e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d from which the j u r y c o u l d have found t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. W i l l i s v . S t a t e , 447 S o . 2 d 199 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 3 ) ; Thomas v . S t a t e . When t h e e v i d e n c e raises questions of fact f o r t h e j u r y and such evidence, i f believed, i s s u f f i c i e n t to sustain a c o n v i c t i o n , the d e n i a l of a motion f o r a judgment of a c q u i t t a l by t h e t r i a l c o u r t does n o t c o n s t i t u t e error. Y o u n g v . S t a t e , 2 8 3 A l a . 6 7 6 , 220 S o . 2 d 843 (19 6 9 ) ; W i l l i s v . S t a t e . " Breckenridge v. S t a t e , 628 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 2 , 1018 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993). "'In determining the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence to s u s t a i n t h e c o n v i c t i o n , t h i s C o u r t must a c c e p t as t r u e t h e evidence i n t r o d u c e d by t h e S t a t e , accord the S t a t e a l l l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e s t h e r e f r o m , and c o n s i d e r t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . ' F a i r c l o t h v . S t a t e , 471 S o . 2 d 485, 48 9 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) , a f f i r m e d , E x p a r t e F a i r c l o t h , [ 4 7 1 ] S o . 2 d 493 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . "'"The r o l e o f a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s i s n o t t o s a y what t h e f a c t s a r e . O u r r o l e , ... i s t o j u d g e w h e t h e r the evidence i s legally sufficient to allow submission o f an i s s u e f o r d e c i s i o n t o t h e j u r y . " Ex parte Bankston, 358 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 0 , 1 0 4 2 ( A l a . 1978). A n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e jury's v e r d i c t only where i t reaches "a c l e a r 10 CR-09-0747 c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e f i n d i n g and j u d g m e n t a r e wrong." K e l l y v . S t a t e , 273 A l a . 2 4 0 , 2 4 4 , 139 So. 2d 326 (1962). ... A v e r d i c t on c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e i s c o n c l u s i v e on a p p e a l . R o b e r s o n v . S t a t e , 162 A l a . 3 0 , 50 So. 345 (1 90 9 ) . "[W]here t h e r e i s ample e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d by t h e s t a t e t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t , i t s h o u l d n o t be o v e r t u r n e d e v e n t h o u g h t h e e v i d e n c e offered by the defendant i s i n sharp conflict therewith and presents a substantial defense." F u l l e r v . S t a t e , 269 A l a . 3 1 2 , 3 3 3 , 113 So. 2d 153 ( 1 9 5 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , F u l l e r v . A l a b a m a , 361 U.S. 936, 80 S. Ct. 380, 4 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1960).' Granger [ v . S t a t e ] , 473 So. 2 d [ 1 1 3 7 , ] 1139 [(Ala. C r i m . App. 1985)]." White v. State, Additionally, probative 546 i t value So. is 2d 1014, well t o be 1017 settled given to the ( A l a . C r i m . App. that "[t]he evidence, the 1989). weight credibility of the w i t n e s s e s , the r e s o l u t i o n of c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y , inferences Smith v. aff'd, t o be State, 698 So. drawn 698 2d 219 from So. 2d (Ala. the 189, evidence 214 are f o r the (Ala. Crim. App. 1996), " I n J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 555 So. 2d 8 1 8 , 8 1 9 - 2 0 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , t h i s c o u r t n o t e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n ' s u f f i c i e n c y ' a n d ' w e i g h t ' as f o l l o w s : "'The weight of the evidence is clearly a different matter from the sufficiency of the evidence. The s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence concerns the q u e s t i o n of whether, " v i e w i n g the evidence in the light most favorable to the p r o s e c u t i o n , [a] r a t i o n a l f a c t f i n d e r c o u l d have found the defendant g u i l t y beyond a reasonable doubt." T i b b s v. F l o r i d a , 457 and jury." 1997). 11 and CR-09-0747 U.S. 3 1 , 3 7 , 102 S. C t . 2 2 1 1 , 2 2 1 5 , 72 L. Ed. 2 d 652 (1982). Accord, P r a n t l v. S t a t e , 462 S o . 2 d 7 8 1 , 784 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1984). fl I "'In c o n t r a s t , " [ t ] h e 'weight of the e v i d e n c e ' r e f e r s t o 'a d e t e r m i n a t i o n [ b y ] t h e t r i e r o f f a c t t h a t a g r e a t e r amount o f c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s one s i d e o f an i s s u e or cause than the o t h e r . ' " Tibbs v. F l o r i d a , 457 U.S. a t 3 7 - 3 8 [ 1 0 2 S. C t . a t 2216] ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . We h a v e r e p e a t e d l y held that i t i s not the province of t h i s court to reweigh the evidence presented at trial. E . g . , F r a n k l i n v . S t a t e , 405 S o . 2 d 9 6 3 , 964 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 405 So. 2 d 966 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ; C r u m p t o n v . S t a t e , 402 S o . 2 d 10 8 1 , 1 0 85 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 402 S o . 2 d 1088 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ; N o b i s v . S t a t e , 401 S o . 2 d 1 9 1 , 198 ( A l a . Cr. App.), c e r t . d e n i e d , 401 S o . 2 d 204 (Ala. 1981). "'[T]he credibility of w i t n e s s e s and t h e w e i g h t o r p r o b a t i v e f o r c e of t e s t i m o n y i s f o r t h e j u r y t o judge and determine.'" H a r r i s v . S t a t e , 513 S o . 2 d 7 9 , 81 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ( q u o t i n g B y r d v . S t a t e , 24 A l a . A p p . 4 5 1 , 136 S o . 431 (1931)).['] "(Emphasis in original.) See S m i t h v . S t a t e , 604 So. 2 d 434 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ; P e a r s o n v . S t a t e , 601 So. 2d 1119 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1992 ) ; C u r r y v . S t a t e , 601 S o . 2 d 157 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) . " Zumbado v . State, 615 So. 2d 1223, 1240-41 1993). 12 ( A l a .Crim. App. CR-09-0747 Count I I of the indictment charged C o s p e r as follows: "The G r a n d J u r y o f s a i d C o u n t y f u r t h e r c h a r g e s t h a t before the f i n d i n g of t h i s indictment, Bobby Joe C o s p e r , w h o s e name i s t o t h e G r a n d J u r y otherwise unknown, an a d u l t criminal sex o f f e n d e r , having p r e v i o u s l y b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f two (2) c o u n t s o f R a p e i n t h e Second Degree i n t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t of Morgan County, Alabama (case# 52CC00-1377), d i d k n o w i n g l y fail or refuse to submit a notice of i n t e n t to t r a n s f e r h i s r e s i d e n c e t o 422 4 t h A v e n u e S o u t h w e s t , D e c a t u r , Morgan County, Alabama w i t h t h e S h e r i f f o f Morgan County, Alabama, t h i r t y (30) d a y s p r i o r t o m o v i n g t o t h e new l o c a t i o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f S e c t i o n 15-20-23 o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a . " (C. 48; e m p h a s i s Section which added.) 1 5 - 2 0 - 2 3 , A l a . Code 1975, d e f i n e s C o s p e r was charged; i t provides as the offense f o r follows: " ( a ) I f an a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r i n t e n d s to t r a n s f e r h i s or her r e s i d e n c e to a d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n , he o r s h e s h a l l s u b m i t a n o t i c e o f i n t e n t t o move t o t h e s h e r i f f o f t h e c o u n t y a n d t h e c h i e f o f p o l i c e o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y i n w h i c h he o r s h e r e s i d e s , and t o t h e s h e r i f f o f t h e c o u n t y and c h i e f o f p o l i c e o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y t o w h i c h he o r s h e p l a n s t o move, i f s u c h a r e d i f f e r e n t , a t l e a s t 30 d a y s p r i o r t o m o v i n g t o t h e new location. The notice of intent t o move shall be on a form developed by the Department of Public Safety p r o v i d e d by t h e s h e r i f f and s h a l l i n c l u d e a l l t h e information r e q u i r e d by t h i s a r t i c l e f o r community notification. Failure to provide a timely and accurate written declaration shall constitute a Class C felony. "(b) regarding criminal Notwithstanding other provisions of law establishment of residence, an adult sex o f f e n d e r shall be deemed to have 13 CR-09-0747 e s t a b l i s h e d a new circumstances: residence i n any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g "(1) Whenever t h a t a d u l t c r i m i n a l sex offender i s domiciled f o r three consecutive days o r more. "(2) Whenever t h a t a d u l t c r i m i n a l sex offender i s d o m i c i l e d f o l l o w i n g h i s or her release, regardless of whether that c r i m i n a l sex o f f e n d e r has been d o m i c i l e d a t the same l o c a t i o n p r i o r t o t h e t i m e o f conviction. "(3) W h e n e v e r an a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r s p e n d s 10 o r m o r e a g g r e g a t e d a y s at a l o c a t i o n d u r i n g a calendar month." The State's evidence Decatur, Morgan Circle. However, girlfriend, Cosper was who County, Cosper shortly that resided thereafter upon at he arriving 1517 moved Buena at to law-enforcement 422 4th Avenue officers Southwest, that her the indictment s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e t o C o s p e r , and any c o n f l i c t s evidence were her mother's testimony that Likewise, Cosper S.L.'s never his Although provided f o r the j u r y . in Vista i n with r e s i d e d a t 622 4 t h A v e n u e S o u t h w e s t . indicated located showed house i n the testimony lived at 622 and 4th A v e n u e S o u t h w e s t a n d s p e n t m o s t o f O c t o b e r 2 0 0 8 t r a v e l i n g was for the j u r y to resolve. 14 CR-09-0747 The Cosper State failed presented to notify transfer his residence, the case to evidence. support the See the Count I sufficient the and authorities the t r i a l j u r y for i t to j u r y ' s v e r d i c t as the The to indictment i n d i c a t i n g that of his intent court properly resolve Zumbado, s u p r a . of evidence any conflicts e v i d e n c e was count charged I I of that to submitted in that sufficient the to indictment. Cosper, "an a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r , h a v i n g previously b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f two (2) c o u n t s o f R a p e i n the Second Degree i n the C i r c u i t Court of Morgan County, Alabama (case # 5 2CC00-1377), d i d k n o w i n g l y f a i l to report semi-annually to the S h e r i f f of Morgan County, Alabama or the C h i e f of P o l i c e of D e c a t u r , Alabama f o r the purpose of v e r i f y i n g h i s p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e , i n v i o l a t i o n of S e c t i o n 15-20-24 of the Code o f A l a b a m a . " (C.R. 48; emphasis Section which added.) 1 5 - 2 0 - 2 4 , A l a . Code 1975, C o s p e r was charged and provides defines as the offense follows: "(a) S i x t y d a y s a f t e r an a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r ' s most c u r r e n t r e l e a s e and, e x c e p t d u r i n g e n s u i n g p e r i o d s o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n , t h e r e a f t e r on t h e a n n i v e r s a r y d a t e o f an a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x offender's birthday occurring m o r e t h a n 90 days after the release and the date six months after the a n n i v e r s a r y d a t e o f an a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x offender's birthday occurring m o r e t h a n 90 days after the r e l e a s e , the Department of P u b l i c S a f e t y s h a l l m a i l a n o n - f o r w a r d a b l e v e r i f i c a t i o n form to the address 15 for CR-09-0747 of the a d u l t c r i m i n a l sex o f f e n d e r . The s h e r i f f , o r c h i e f of p o l i c e where a p p l i c a b l e , where the adult c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r r e s i d e s s h a l l be n o t i f i e d of the pending verification and whether the v e r i f i c a t i o n f o r m was r e c e i v e d b y t h e a d u l t c r i m i n a l sex offender. "(b) Within 10 d a y s o f t h e r e c e i p t of the v e r i f i c a t i o n form, the a d u l t c r i m i n a l sex offender s h a l l present i n person the completed v e r i f i c a t i o n form to the sheriff, or chief of police where applicable, who shall obtain f i n g e r p r i n t s and a p h o t o g r a p h of the a d u l t c r i m i n a l sex o f f e n d e r . The verification form shall be signed by the adult c r i m i n a l sex o f f e n d e r and s h a l l s t a t e t h a t t h e a d u l t c r i m i n a l sex o f f e n d e r s t i l l r e s i d e s at t h a t a d d r e s s and that the adult c r i m i n a l sex offender is in compliance with the residence restrictions established in this article. I n the event the a d u l t criminal sex offender does not receive a verification form from the Department of Public Safety, the offender must n o n e t h e l e s s report in person to the sheriff, or c h i e f of p o l i c e where a p p l i c a b l e , to v e r i f y h i s or her p l a c e of residence w i t h i n 90 d a y s o f h i s o r h e r m o s t r e c e n t r e l e a s e a n d thereafter each year within 30 days of the o f f e n d e r ' s b i r t h d a y and t h e d a t e s i x months a f t e r the o f f e n d e r ' s birthday. "(c) W i t h i n 30 d a y s o f an a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r ' s address v e r i f i c a t i o n , the Department of P u b l i c Safety s h a l l , i n accordance with g u i d e l i n e s p r o m u l g a t e d by the Department of Public Safety, r e c e i v e from the a p p r o p r i a t e sheriff or c h i e f of police verification of the adult criminal sex offender's address. Such g u i d e l i n e s s h a l l ensure that address verification is accomplished with r e s p e c t t o t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s and s h a l l r e q u i r e t h e s u b m i s s i o n o f f i n g e r p r i n t s and p h o t o g r a p h s o f the individuals. 16 CR-09-0747 "(d) A n a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r who fails to verify h i s or her place of residence i n accordance with this section, provides a false statement to law enforcement i n the v e r i f i c a t i o n process, or knowingly fails to permit law enforcement personnel to obtain f i n g e r p r i n t s or a p h o t o g r a p h s h a l l be g u i l t y o f a C l a s s C f e l o n y . " Section 15-20-24, A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e s forms o f address v e r i f i c a t i o n . The f i r s t must sex be release. annual completed after the two address offender's verification most The s e c o n d f o r m o f a d d r e s s v e r i f i c a t i o n verification that i s triggered the sex offender's birthday the by different current i s the semi¬ the anniversary sex offender's birthday. In this case, Cosper and the six-month of was not r e p o r t and t o complete h i s " i n i t i a l indicted for failing of for failing to address v e r i f i c a t i o n " as r e q u i r e d b y § 15-20-24, A l a . Code 1975. indicted anniversary form Rather, Cosper t o r e p o r t " s e m i a n n u a l l y " as r e q u i r e d § 1 5 - 2 0 - 2 4 , A l a . Code 1975. However, even was by i f the indictment had p r o p e r l y charged Cosper w i t h n o t r e p o r t i n g and c o m p l e t i n g the initial present Under sufficient that either: address verification evidence section, (a) within a to support convicted 10 days 17 form sex after the such State a conviction. o f f e n d e r must receiving d i d not an report address CR-09-0747 verification within form from the Department 90 d a y s a f t e r the offender's does not r e c e i v e a v e r i f i c a t i o n Code 1975. that The the form 10 d a y s of i f form, -- complete Cosper he the i n i t i a l jail 2 0 0 8 -period on had i.e., until t o comply had or that did mailed Cosper 90 not days January 10, later. with not i f he See § 1 5 - 2 0 - 2 4 ( b ) , A l a . Safety 8, verification October 20 d a y s requirement Public to Cosper release from form. release an failed address to report a f t e r r e c e i v i n g an a d d r e s s v e r i f i c a t i o n Furthermore, verification most r e c e n t (b) d i d n o t p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g Department verification within State of P u b l i c Safety; or 2008, receive after 2009 form. and the yet initial elapsed. 7 his -- In on rearrested address recent report was October the Cosper and released 30, 90-day verification fact, 6 address most to Cosper rearrested When C o s p e r was an form. had form two I n f a c t , t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c S a f e t y was n o t r e q u i r e d t o s e n d s u c h a n o t i f i c a t i o n u n t i l 60 d a y s a f t e r C o s p e r ' s m o s t r e c e n t r e l e a s e , w h i c h w o u l d h a v e b e e n D e c e m b e r 9, 2 0 0 8 . See § 1 5 - 2 0 - 2 4 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975. 6 D u r i n g h e r t e s t i m o n y , Ana F r a n k l i n t e s t i f i e d t h a t C o s p e r was supposed to report to the Morgan County Sheriff's D e p a r t m e n t w i t h i n s e v e n d a y s a f t e r h i s r e l e a s e ; t h a t t h a t was the b a s i s f o r Count I o f the i n d i c t m e n t ; and t h a t Cosper had not r e g i s t e r e d w i t h the Morgan County S h e r i f f ' s Department. The r e p o r t i n g a n d a d d r e s s - v e r i f i c a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t f o r t h 7 18 CR-09-0747 months t o comply w i t h the that Cosper's verify that arrest h i s address Cosper for statutory failing premature. violated had was the requirement. to It initially The report State f a i l e d initial appears reporting to and prove address v e r i f i c a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s s e t o u t i n § 15-20-24, A l a . Code Neither Cosper failed requirement the did the to State comply present with evidence the i n § 15-20-24, A l a . Code 1975. triggering dates that reporting Under § for a convicted criminal 1975. showing semiannual and 15-20-24, sex o f f e n d e r ' s duty to v e r i f y h i s r e s i d e n c e s e m i a n n u a l l y are the a n n i v e r s a r y of the o f f e n d e r ' s b i r t h d a y and offender's birthday. a sex offender semiannual receiving Public Pursuant would address the date first t o § 15-20-24, A l a . Code be verification: an a d d r e s s v e r i f i c a t i o n safety; s i x months a f t e r required (a) to within form from report 10 days the 1975, for a after the Department of (b) t h e a n n i v e r s a r y o f t h e o f f e n d e r ' s b i r t h d a y 15-20-24, A l a . Code 1975, are different from the in r e g i s t r a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t f o r t h i n § 13A-11-200, A l a . Code 1975. S e c t i o n 13A-11-200 r e q u i r e s that a sex offender r e g i s t e r w i t h the s h e r i f f of the county of h i s l e g a l r e s i d e n c e within seven days following his release. Although the e v i d e n c e would have s u p p o r t e d a c o n v i c t i o n f o r f a i l i n g to r e g i s t e r p u r s u a n t t o § 13A-11-200, A l a . Code 1975, C o s p e r was not charged w i t h v i o l a t i n g that s e c t i o n . 19 CR-09-0747 that occurs after his month a n n i v e r s a r y his initial In initial verification; of the o f f e n d e r ' s or (c) the birthday that occurs sixafter verification. this case, the State did not present any evidence showing t h a t the Department of P u b l i c S a f e t y had mailed an verification. address verification More i m p o r t a n t l y , verify his address semiannual time of by verify due For for semiannual not yet elapsed. requirement arrest. The had Therefore, been State report and neither triggered failed 8 to at the present e v i d e n c e t h a t C o s p e r v i o l a t e d § 15-20-24, A l a . Code not his t o be had Cosper's for a time f o r Cosper to i n i t i a l l y reporting sufficient 1975, the form Cosper initially address. reversed the failing Cosper's and foregoing to reporting give and having conviction for that a judgment rendered r e a s o n s , we timely law notice his offense i n Cosper's a f f i r m Cosper's of enforcement intent is favor. conviction to transfer I n f a c t , t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c S a f e t y was n o t r e q u i r e d t o do s o u n t i l t h e a n n i v e r s a r y d a t e o f C o s p e r ' s b i r t h d a y t h a t o c c u r r e d m o r e t h a n 90 d a y s a f t e r h i s r e l e a s e o r t h e s i x - m o n t h a n n i v e r s a r y o f C o s p e r ' s b i r t h d a y t h a t o c c u r r e d m o r e t h a n 90 d a y s a f t e r he was r e l e a s e d . C o s p e r was r e l e a s e d on O c t o b e r 10, 2 0 0 8 ; he was r e a r r e s t e d on O c t o b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 . Therefore, a t t h e t i m e he was a r r e s t e d , t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c S a f e t y was n o t y e t r e q u i r e d t o s e n d C o s p e r a n a d d r e s s v e r i f i c a t i o n form f o r h i s semiannual v e r i f i c a t i o n . 8 20 CR-09-0747 his residence, reverse for Cosper's failing violation circuit a violation o f § 15-20-23, conviction to semiannually of court § 15-20-24, to render A l a . Code 1975. under count verify h i s place A l a . Code a judgment I of the 1975, We indictment of residence, and i n Cosper's direct favor on a the that charge. AFFIRMED Wise, I N PART; R E V E R S E D AND P . J . , and Welch, Windom, concur. 21 RENDERED I N PART. Kellum, and Main, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.