i i i i i i



### OPIN ION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 54 4- CR Alfre do HER

NA ND EZ , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 229th J udicial District Court, Starr County , Texas

Trial Court No. 08-CRS-162 Honora ble Alex W illiam Gabert, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: May 26, 2010 AFF I RMED A jury f o u n d a p p e ll an t A lf

r e d o H e r n an d e z g u il ty o f c r im in a l s o li c it a ti o n o f a minor and assessed punishment at ten y ear s’ conf inement. The trial court suspended the se ntence and plac ed appellant on ten year s’ community supervision. On appe al, appe llant argues (1) the trial court lac ked jur isd ic tio n, and

the re fo re , h is c on vic tio n is vo id, (2 ) the tr ia l court e rr e d in re fu sin g to ad mit int o
e vid e nc e the c omp la ina

nt’ s My Spa c e page, and (3 ) t he re is i ns uf

fi c ie nt c or

ro bo ratio n to e sta

bli sh his g uil t. We a ff

ir m.04
- 09
- 00 54 4- CR

- 2- F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND Appellant’s f

irst cousin’s daug hter, B .M., is the complainant in this case. The State alleg ed appellant solicited sexual a cts from B.M. on Fr iday , April 18, 2008, during a school-sponsor ed wa lka-thon. Prior to the wa lk-a-thon, a ppellant—a police office r—had se vera l encoun t ers with B.M., including stopping in his patrol ca r to ask her

how she wa s doing in school, g iving he r a r ide to the store, g i v i n g h er a ride home from the pool, a nd askingher a

bout her sexual activity

with her boy friend. O n the eve ning of the walk- a-thon, B .M.—a seve nth gr ade stude nt—walked with seve ral of her friends to the w alk-a -thon. Along the way , another g irl in a ca

r tried to ru n t h e gi rl s over. When the g irls arrive d at the school, B.M. repor ted the car incident to a

ppellant. Appellant wa

rned he r n ot t o g e t in to a

fi g ht. L a te r, a

pp e lla nt t old B .M . a nd se ve ra l of h e r f

ri e nd s th a t he wa

nte d to ta lk to B.M. alone . Acc ord ing to B .M., appellant a sked her if she would g ive him a “ha nd job” and a

“ blo w j ob ,” and he ask ed to “ pu t it in [h e r] f

or 15 min ute s” in e xch ang e fo r m on e y . Init ia lly appellant of

fer ed her $100, but B .M. testified “he went [up to] $200.” M.A.S., B .M.’s boy friend at the time, testified he s aw appellant talking to B.M. at the w alk-a -thon and B .M. “had a fac e on as if she didn’t wa

nt to talk to him. And j ust with her arms down.” The conver sation lasted for f ive to t e n mi nu te s. Whe n B. M. and a pp e lla nt f ini sh e d ta lki ng , B .M . r e tur ne d a nd sat on a be nc h w ith her f riend, S.S. L ater , M.A.S. asked B .M. what appe llant told her b ec au s e “she looked unhappy while she wa s talking to him.” B .M. responde d that she would tell him later. S.S. and B .M . le ft the wa lk- a -t

ho n tog e the r, sto pp e d by S.S. ’s ho us e , a nd e ve ntu a lly

we nt t o B .M .’ s a un t’ s h ou se . Wh ile the re , B .M . to ld S .S. wh a t a pp e lla nt s a id t o h e r a

t th e wa lk- a -t

ho n. S.S. stated B .M. was cr

y ing, a nd S.S. t old her that she ne eded to r eport the solicitation. The two the n met M.A.S. and told him what had happene d. S.S. also t estified B .M. told her that appe llant had offe red04
- 09
- 00 54 4- CR

- 3- to pick her up at night at a ny time, and on the nig ht of the wa lk-a-thon, ap p el l an t o ff ere d to give B.M. a ride to her

fathe r’s house the next day . The following Monday , B.M. r eporte d the solicitation to H ild a Mo re no , th e sc ho ol c ouns e lor . M or e no no tif ie d th e pr inc ipa l of the sc ho ol a nd Chi ld Protective Servic es (“ CPS ”). I ra se ma Sanc he z, B .M .’ s st e p- mot he r, te sti fi e d sh e we nt wi th B .M
. to the po lic e statio n to
re po rt the so lic itatio n. Whil e the re , s he re c e ive d a ph on e c a ll f

ro m a pp e lla nt who tol d h e r t o “ ta lk to [ B.M.] and re mind her that we wer e fa mily , . . . for her t o leave ever y thing the way it was, [and] that he had of

fer ed her a hundre d dollars but it was for her quinceane ra dress.” She stated appe llant then aske d to talk to B.M.’s father (a ppellant’s cousin), B .M.’s fathe r put the phone on spe aker , and appellant told him the same thing
. Eduardo E nriquez, a special investigator for CP S, testified he spoke wit h appellant one wee k afte r the solicitation. Appellant ag ree d to give an ora l statement and made it clea r to Enriquez that he and B .M. were related and that he was trying to keep her out of t rouble because she wa s g etting into fights and r

unning a way . Appellant told Enr iquez that B.M. had run awa y sever al times in the past and he r mother wa s having a lot of problems with he r. Appellant, howe ver, c ould not produce any documentation re flec ting B .M. was troub l ed o r h ad eve r run a way , nor did Enriquez’s inv e sti g a tio n r e ve a l any

re port s o f B .M . h a vin g ru n a wa y . Wh e n a sk e d d

ur ingthe int e rv ie w t o descr ibe B.M. phy sically , appellant stated, “Oh y eah my niece , she’s a very beautiful g irl.” He stated she had “ beautiful g ree n ey es,” a nd she wa s “white c omplected, guerita.” Enriquez t es t i fi ed that appell ant’s demeanor c hang ed whe n he beg an to desc ribe B .M.—“he r eclined ba ck and like ‘ Oh y eah, she ’s,’ I

mean his whole complexion cha ng ed. Br oug ht a smile to his face , said she wa s a re al04
- 09
- 00 54 4- CR

- 4- beautiful g irl.” Appe llant commented that most g irls in the are a wer e dark c omplected, but B .M. was “g uerita.” Jovit a Shi ve s, a CPS inv e sti g a tor , te sti fi e d sh e wa s p re se nt d ur inga pp e lla nt’ s in te rv ie w w ith Enriquez. Acc ording to Shives, appellant said he talke d t o B.M. on two oc casions the e vening of the walk- a-thon: the fir st ti m e h e j u s t s aid hello; the sec ond time she was with a g roup of f riends when a ppel l an t s t o p p ed her a

nd insisted on speaking to her a lone re g ardinga fig ht. Appellant offe red to pick B .M. up after the walk- a-thon to look for the vehicle that tried t o run her over. A fter lear ning of the solicitation alleg ations, appellant stated he contac ted B.M.’ s g randmother and aske d he r to ar ra ng e a me e tin g be tw e e n h ims e lf and B .M .’ s f a the r. He a sk e d B .M .’ s g ra ndmot he r t o te ll B.M. to tell the truth. When asked to desc ribe B .M., appellant said she was a problematic c hild who
ran a way at three o’cloc k in the morning and who wa s alway s g etting into fig hts. He stated she was “nothing but trouble.” When aske d to de scribe her phy sically , appellant “ threw himself ba ck in the
c h a i r , . . . t h r e w h i s h an d s u p an d s a i d
. . . , ‘ S h e ’ s b e a

u t i f u l
. S h e ’ s g o tg r e e ne ye s an d b l a c k e ye lashes . . . , she’ s beautiful. She’s thin, lig ht skinned.” When asked spe cifica lly about ora l sex , he commented that “ he wished e very man could have it more often, blow jobs.” P e dr o C a s t i l l o , a

s e r g e an ti nt h e p o l i c e d e p art m e n ta tt h e R i o G r an d e C i t y s c h o o l d i s t ri c t, testified he a lso interviewed a ppellant. Appellant stated he talked to B .M. the nig ht of the wa lk-atho n, of fe re d to fi le a

re po rt a bo ut t he c ar inc ide nt, and of

fe re d he r tr ans po rt a tio n if sh e ne e de d it
. Castillo, however, testified no r eport ha d ever been filed and no re fer

rals had be en made reg arding B
. M
. r u n n i n g aw ay.04
- 09
- 00 54 4- CR

- 5- B.M.’ s mother testified she ne ver had a rea son to report B .M. as a r unawa y , B.M. ha d never been r efe rre d to the juvenile authorities, and there wer e no complaints reg arding B.M. in her school
a c tiv iti e s. JU RI SDI CT ION I n h is f ir st, se c on d, and

thi rd iss ue s o n a

pp e a l, a pp e lla nt a rgue s h is c on vic tio n is inv a lid beca use his indictment was not proper ly returne d and pre sented. A p p ell ant points out he was ind ic te d b y

a g ra nd jur y e mpa ne le d b y th e 38 1s t Judi c ia l D ist ri c t Co ur t ( “ 38 1s t” ); his ind ic tme nt, howeve r, wa s filed in the 229th Judicial District Court ( “229th”) —the court in which a ppellant was la te r t ri e d a nd c on vic te d. Ap pe lla

nt a sse rt s his c a se wa s no t “ of fi c ia lly tr ans fe rr e d” fr om t

he 38 1s t to the 229th; therefor e, the 229th did not have jurisdiction over the matter, and his conviction is void. Criminal district courts have orig inal jurisdiction in fe lony criminal ca ses. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 4.05 (V ernon 2005)
. I n order to vest a cour

t with jurisdiction of a criminal ac tion,
a g rand jury

must present an indictment or inf ormation cha

rg ing a person with the c ommissi on of an off ense. T EX . C O N ST . art V, § 1 2( b) ; see T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art . 2 0. 21 . A lth ou g h a sp e c if ic district court may

impanel a g rand jury , it doe s not ne cessa rily follow that all case s returne d by that g rand jury are assig ned to that court. Bo urqu e v . S tate , 156 S.W .3d 675, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. re f’d) . A ca se assig ned to a district cour t other than the district court to which the g rand jur y pr e se nte d the ind ic tme nt am ounts on ly to a pr oc e dura l irr e g ula ri ty , not a jur isd ic tio na l de fe c t. Se e Tam e z v . S tate , 27 S.W .3d 668, 671 (Tex. A pp.—Waco 2000, pet. ref

’d) (no jurisdictional defe ct wh e re g ra nd jur y e mpa ne le d by 23 2n d Jud ic ia l D istri c t Co ur t of Ha rr is C ounty

re tur ne d in dic tme nt, wh ic h w a s su

bs e qu e ntl y

fi le d in 18 0th Judic ia l D ist

ri c t Co ur t of Ha rr is C ounty

); see also State v. Sm ith , 9 57 S.W. 2d

16 3, 16 4– 65 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 97 , no pe t.) (i nd ic tme nt r e tur ne d b y Runne ls04
- 09
- 00 54 4- CR

- 6- County g rand jury

but filed in Tom Gree n County district court should have be en cha lleng ed bef ore
e ntr y of g uil ty ple a ); se e als o M

os le yv . S tate , 172 Tex. Crim . 1 1 7, 120, 354 S.W .2d 391, 393–94 (1962) ( reje cting “jurisdictional” c halleng e whe re de fenda nt was tried a

nd con v ic te d in district court other than one that empane led grand jury even thoug h rec ord conta ined no transf er or der)
. An objection t o a procedura l irregularity should be raised in a pre trial motion. Tamez , 27 S.W .3d at 671. He re , ap p el l an t ’s i n d i ct m en t re fl ects that it was pr esente d to the 381st by a g rand jury empane led by the 381st: “ THE GRAND J URY OF STARR COUNTY , TEXAS, duly s el ected,
e mpa ne le d, sw or

n, c ha rg e d, and or g anize d at the Ap ri l 20 08 TE RM of t he38 1s t D ist

ric t Co ur t for Starr County , u

pon th e ir oaths pr ese nt to s aid

Cou rt . . .” (e mphasis added) . The indictment then char g es appellant with c riminal solicitation of a minor, a fe lony

offe nse. Ther efor e, the indictment
wa s p ro pe rl y

pr e se nte d to ve st the 38 1s t w ithjur isd ic tio n o f a pp e lla nt’ s c a us e , a nd any ob je c tio n to proce eding in the 229th—a proc edura l irregularity —should have be en r ais ed in a pr etrial motion. A p p e l l an t , h o w e v e r , d i d n o t c o mp l a i n t o t h e t r i a l c o u rt a b o u t p r o c e e d i n g i n t h e 2 2 9 t h
. C o n s e qu e n t l y, appellant’ s complaint conce rning the indictment, raised f or the first time on appea l, is not preserve d for our revie w. ADMISSIBIL ITY OF EVIDENCE I n his fourth and fif

th issues on appea l, appellant ar g ues the trial c ourt err ed whe n it refuse d to a dmi t in to e vid e nc e B .M .’ s My Spa c e pa g e , th e re by vio latin g his c on sti tu tiona l r ig hts to confr ontation and due pr ocess. The My Space pag e, crea ted by B.M., shows a picture of B .M. and her boy friend at school taken sometime af ter the a lleg ed solicitat i o n . T h e caption to t he picture
re a ds , “ omgho w n a sty

i g e t it a ll the tim e je

je .” Ap pe lla

nt c on te nd s th e pic tur e and c a pti on imp ly that, pr ior to h e r e nc ounte r w itha pp e lla nt, B .M . h a d k

no wl e dg e of

the se xua l te rm s sh e a c c us e s h im04
- 09
- 00 54 4- CR

- 7- of using in the solicitation. Thus, a ccor ding to a ppellant, the evide nce is re levant bec ause it tends to show B.M. a ctually

participated in cer

tain sexual activities, and there fore , s h e did not lear n the words re fer

ring to these ac tiviti es for the first time from any

thing appellant s aid to her. A ccor ding to a pp e lla nt, the My Spa c e pa g e su

pp or ts h is t he or y that B .M . f

a br ic a te d th e a c c us a tio n a g a ins t hi m. We reviewa trial c ourt’s ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidenc e for an abuse of discretion. Ru sse au v . S

tate , 2 91 S.W. 3d

42 6, 438 (Tex
. Cr im. Ap p. 20 09 ); Po lla rd v . S tate , 255 S.W .3d 184, 187 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008), aff’d , 277 S.W .3d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). A tri a l c ourt

a bu se s it s d isc re tio n w he n its d e c isi on is o uts ide the zon e of

re a so na ble dis a g re e me nt. Mo ntgom e ry

v . S tate , 810 S.W .2d 372, 3 9 1 (T ex . C ri m . App. 1990). We may not reve rse a

trial court’s de cision reg ardingthe admissibilit y of evide nce sole ly

beca use we disag ree with the trial court’s de cision. Cam e ro n v . S tate , 241 S.W .3d 15, 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) . We consider the ruling in light of what was bef ore the trial court at the time the ruling was made and uphold the trial court’s judg ment if it lies within t he zone of re asonable disag ree ment. Bi llo de au v . S tate , 277 S.W .3d 34, 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Relevant e vid en ce i s evidence that has a ny tendenc y to make the e x istence of any fac t of conseque nce to the de termination of the a ction more or le ss probable tha n it would be without the evidenc e. T EX . R. E V ID . 401. I f t he evidence is not rele vant, i t is not admissible. See id. 4 0 2
. In de c idi ngwh e the r e vid e nc e is r e le va nt, a tr ial c ourt

sh ou ld a sk

wh e the r a

re a so na ble pe rs on , w ith
some experience in the real world, would believe the evidenc e is helpful i n deter mining the truth or falsity of any fac t that is of conseque nce to the lawsuit. Mo ntg om e ry , 8 10 S.W. 2d

a t 37 6; Benoit v. Sta te , 87 S.W .3d 668, 673 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. ref ’d).04
- 09
- 00 54 4- CR

- 8- Her e, the imag e on the My Space pag e depicts B.M. smili ng while her boy friend has his arm around he r. The c aption to the picture, “ omg how nasty i ge t it all the tim e jeje,” is va g ue, off ers no contextual support, and is potentially misleading
. W e ar e l ef

t t o speculate as to what the caption ref ers, the na

ture of its intended me aning , and whe ther it was wr itte n i n jest. Even if we take the caption to imply

what appe llant asserts it implies—that B.M. was se x ually active prior to the solicitation—we disag ree that the implication makes it more likely that B.M. f

abric ated the alleg ation of solicitation. Moreover , beca use the picture was taken afte r the solicitation, the caption also was posted a fter the solicitation. The refore, the caption has no spe cific r eleva nce to B .M.’s kn ow le dg e of

se xua l te rm s be

for e her encounte r with a

ppellant. For

these re asons, we c onclude the
e vid e nc e is i rr e le va

nt, the tr ia l c ourt

did no t a bu se its di sc re tio n in

re fu sin g to a dmi t it , a

nd its exclusion did not violate appellant’ s constitutional rights. Se e Ha le v . S tate , 140 S.W .3d 381, 396 (T e x. Ap p. —F or

t Wor th 2 00 4, pe t. r e f’ d) (C on sti tut ion re quir es in tr od

uc tio n o f o nly

oth e rw ise rele vant and a dmissibl e evide nce)
. CORROBORATION REQUIREMENT I n his six th and seve nth issues on appea l, appellant arg ues the e vidence adduce d at trial, af ter excluding B.M.’s t estimony , did not sufficie ntly rise to the level of strong ly corr oborative e vidence of his g uilt, which is required unde r sec tion 15.031( c) o f t h e T ex as P enal Code. See T EX . P EN AL C ODE ANN . § 15.031(c) (Ve rnon 2003). We must disag ree . A. P enal Code Section 15.031(c) As a pp lic a ble in t his c a se , a

pe rs on c omm its the of

fe ns e of so lic itatio n o f a

min or if , w ith int e nt that a se xua l a ssa

ult be c omm itt e d, the pe rs on by any me ans re qu e sts , c omm and s, or a tte mpt s to induce a minor to eng ag e in specific conduct that, under the circumstanc es surroundingthe ac tor’s04
- 09
- 00 54 4- CR

- 9- conduct a s the ac tor believe s them to be, would constitute a sexua l as s au lt. T EX . P EN A L C ODE §§ 15 .0 31 (b ), 22 .0 11 ; Lan k for d v . S tate , 2 55 S.W. 3d

27 5, 27 6– 77 (T e x. Ap p. —Wac o 2 00 8, pe t. ref ’d). How ev er , a p er s o n may not be convicte d of solicitation of a minor on the unc orrobor ated testimony of the minor alleg edly solicited “unless the solicitation is made und er ci rcumstances strong ly corr oborative of

both the solicitation itself and the a ctor’s intent that the minor a ct on the solicitation.” T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 15.031(c)
. Th e c or ro bo ratio n r e qu ir e d und er sect ion 15 .0 31 (c ) i s a

na log ou s to , a

nd sh ou ld b e re a d in conjunction w it

h , th e c o r roboration requireme nt found in article 38.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e. Lan k

for d , 255 S.W. 3d

a t 27 7; se e Ri c ha rd

so n v . S tate , 7 00 S.W. 2d

59 1, 59 4 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1985). Ar

ticle 38.14 provide s t h at a conviction may not be sustained upon the testimony of
an a c c omp lic e un le ss i t is c or ro bo rate d b y

oth e r t e sti mony

wh ic h te nd s to c onne c t th e de fe nd ant w ith the offe nse. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 38.14. Thus, the corr oboration in c rim i n al s olicitation
case s must link the defendant to the c rime at two sepa rate stag es: the evide nce must be c orrobor ative of both the solicitation itself and the actor ’s intent that the other person act on t h e s o l i ci t ati on. Richardson , 700 S.W .2d at 594. I n Richardson , the defe ndant ar g ued the wor d “strong ly ” sug g ested
a more stringe nt st an d ar d than that of a rticle 38.14 should be a

pplied. The Court of Criminal Appea ls disag ree d, howeve r, and e x plained that the “ strong ly corr oborative” require ment does not indicate a differ ent standard of proof; rathe r, it mer ely re- emphasizes the need for an additional
sa fe g ua rd , th a t be ingthat th e c or

ro bo ratio n mu st g o to bo th the so lic itatio n a nd the so lic ito r’ s in te nt. Id. ; see Go sc h v . S

tate , 8 29 S.W. 2d

77 5, 77 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ) ( c iti ngfa vo ra bly to Richardson ); Ho lla da

yv . S tate , 709 S.W .2d 194, 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (same)
.04
- 09
- 00 54 4- CR

- 10- I n assessing the s ufficie ncy of t he corroborating evidence , we e liminate the minor victim’s te sti mony fr om c on sid e ratio n a

nd the n, vie wi ngthe re ma ini ng e vid e nc e in the lig ht mos t f a vo ra ble to t he jur y ’s ve rd ic t, d e te rm ine whe the r t he c omb ine d w e ig ht o f t

he re ma ini nge vid e nc e , e ve n if entirely circ umstantial, tends to connec t the accused with the cr ime. Se e Br own v . S tate , 270 S.W .3d 56 4, 56 7 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ); Richardson , 700 S.W .2d at 594. The tends-to-conne ct standar d prese nts a low hurdle f

or the State beca

use the evidenc e need not dir ectly link the acc used with the crime or be suff icient in itself to establish guilt. Se e Br own , 270 S.W. 3d a t 56 7; Do wth itt v . S tate , 931 S.W .2d 244, 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Howe ver, a mere showing of beingassociate s or that the ac cused a

nd the minor wer e tog ether befor e or shor

tly afte r t he commis sion of t he offense is not b y i t s el f suffic ient corr oboration. Se e Sh e ffi e ld v . S tate , 8 4 7 S. W. 2 d

2 5 1 , 2 5 9 ( T e x. A p p . — Ty ler 19 92 , p e t. r e f’ d) . A lso , e vid e nc e tha t me re ly g oe s to sh owmot ive or

op po rt un ity of the a c c us e d to commit the crime is insufficie nt corrobor ation. See id. at 260. The pe rson alleg edly solicited may state any number of f

acts that a re c orrobor ated by evidenc e of othe r witnesses; still, if the fac ts thus
corr oborate d do not tend to connec t the acc used with the cr ime, the req u irements of se ction 15.031(c) are not met. See id. F ina lly , we a c kn ow le dg e the jur y is p e rm itt e d to re ly

up on re a so na ble infere nces in de termining whether the other f

acts a nd suspicious circumstanc es tend to conne ct the
acc used wit h the offe nse. Pe de n v . S tate , 917 S.W .2d 941, 946–47 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 1996, pe t. r e f’ d)
. Th us , whe n co ns ide ri ngthe c omb ine d w e ig ht o f t he re ma ini nge vid e nc e , w e a lso consider r easona

ble infer ence s that can be draw n there from. See id. B. Su ff iciency of Corroborat ing E vidence I t is un dis pu te d t hat a

pp e lla nt a nd B .M . ta lke d to g e the r p ri vate ly a t th e wa lk- a -t

ho n. Th is fac t alone, howe ver, w ill not s uffice to corrobor ate e ither the solicitation or appellant’ s intent. See04
- 09
- 00 54 4- CR

- 11- Sh e ffi e ld , 84 7 S. W.2 d at 26 0 ( e vid e nc e that me re ly sh ow s o pp or

tun ity to com mi t cri me is insufficient c orrobor ation). Howe ver, after coupling this evidence with all the other c orrobor ating evidenc e, we conclude the combined weig ht of t he evidence tends to connec t appellant to both the solicitation a

nd the requisite intent. Cf. Do wth itt , 931 S.W .2d at 249 (e vidence of pre sence coupled with other suspicious circ umstances may tend to connec t acc used to offe nse). F irst, as to the
so lic itatio n, M. A. S. te sti fi e d B .M
. a pp e are d unha

pp y wh ile ta lki ngto a

pp e lla nt. S.S. te sti fi e d B .M
. crie d when she told S.S . what appellant said to her. B.M.’ s step-mother testified a ppellant admitted to offer ing B .M. $100. The step-mother also testified appellant c alled her and aske d her to re mind B.M. that they

“we re family ” and to “ leave ever y thing the w ay

it was . . . .” Appe llant commented to t he inv e sti g a tor that he “ wi sh e d e ve ry man c ou ld have it m or e of te n, blo w j ob s. ” B a se d o n th is evidenc e, the jury

could have rea sonably

inferr ed appe llant solicited a sexual act from B .M. Second, as to a

ppellant’s intent, his admission that h e offere d B.M. $100, a nd Enriquez’s testimony that appellant’ s entire demeanor and complex ion chang ed as he descr ibed B .M.’s phy sical
a p p e ar an c e s u

p p o rt t h e in f e r e n c e th a t a

p p e ll an t i n te n d e d

B
. M
. to act upon th e s o li c it a ti o n . We conclude the evi d en ce , after excluding B .M.’s testimony , tends to connec t appellant to both the solicitation and the requisite intent, a nd there fore , the evidenc e is sufficie ntly corr oborative unde r Penal Code sec tion 15.031(c).04
- 09
- 00 54 4- CR

- 12- CO NC LU SION We o ve rr ule a pp e lla nt’ s is su e s o n a

pp e a l and a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Pub lis h