### NUM BER 13-09- 284- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
CL A YT ON FR

Y, A pp ellan t,

v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 30t h Dist rict C ou rt of M ata go rda Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es B en av id es a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la A j ur y co nv ic ted a ppel lan t, Cl ayton Fr y , of s ex ual ass aul t of a chi ld. See T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 22.011( a) (2 )( A) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009)

. After findi ng appel lan t had tw o pr ior
s e qu e n t ia l f e lo n y co n vic t io n s , t h e ju ry a s s e s s e d p u n is h m e n tu n d e r t h e h a b it u a l- fe lo n yoff ender statut e at fiftyye ars’ impri sonment

. See id

. § 12.42( d) (V er non Supp. 2009)

. BySee T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 38

. 22 , § 2 (a)(1)-( 5) (V ern on 20 05 ). 1 T he t r i al cour t adm i t t ed t he wr i t t en wai v er i nt o ev i dence as St at e’ s exhi bi t 1. 2 T he t r i al cour t adm i t t ed t he wr i t t en st at em ent i nt o ev i dence as St at e’ s exhi bi t 2. 3 2 a s ing le is sue, appel lan t c ontends thatthe ev ide n ce i s i nsuffici ent t o es tabl is h tha t he i nt en ti on al l y

o r k no w i ng l y

c om mi tt ed t he o ffens e of s ex ua l a s s au l t of a c hi l d. W e affi r m. I. F A CTUA L B A CKGRO UND In J une 2008, A.F .’ s g ra ndfather found out that one of A.F .’ s fr ien ds w as ang ry w it h he r “ for doi ng so me th i ng .” W he n he tal k ed to A. F . ab ou t w ha t ha d ha pp en ed , he b ec am e
aw ar e tha t A. F. and appel lan t had “sex ual contac t.” After tal ki ng to A.F ., the g ra ndfather
c o n t a c t e d t h e Ma t a go rd a Co u n t y S h e ri f f ’s De p a rt m e n t , a n d S e rg e a n tCh a rl o t t e B ro wn int er v iew ed A. F. D ur ing the int er v iew , A. F. “ admit [ted] to sex ual i nter course. ” Serg eant Brow n tes ti fied th at A .F . and appel lan t w er e nev er mar ri ed to e a ch o ther and thatat the time of the sexual assa ult, A.F. w as fourte en years old, and app ellant w as thirty- six y ears old

. A p p e ll a n twa s a rr e s t e d a n d t a k e n t o t h e c o u n t y ja il , wh e re S e rg e a n tB ro wn in t e rvi e we d h im

. B e f o r e s h e b e ga n t o a s ka p p e ll a n ta b o u tt h e se xu a l a s s a u lt , sh e ga ve him the rights pursua nt to article 38.2 2 of the T exas Code of

Cri min al Proce d u re
. He 1
w aiv ed thes e r ig hts and prov ide d her a w ri tten sta tement i n w hic h he sta ted, in re lev ant 2 3 par t: I am t el l ing Sgt. Br ow n th e tr ut h to da y a bo utw ha t ha pp en ed b etw ee n me and [A.F .]. F irst of all , i t w asn’ t in June, itw as in Ma y 2008. I w as at a par

ty at R ob and Lin da’ s h ouse. Ti g er W h it e w as there too

. [A.F .] keptca ll ing Tig e r a n d a sk in g if I w as there. Fi rs t t hin g I knew sh e s how ed up there. W hen s he g ot t her e s he as ked if I coul d gether so me pow der

. She al re ady h a d s o me b u t s h e k n e w s h e w o u l d r u n o u t

. C o u rt n e y R a w l i n g s g e t s h e r

s t u ff but C our tney w asn’ t t her e. I w asn’ t hap py to see her

sh ow up b ecaus e s he has been chas ing after m e for aw hil e. I didn’ t ev er

hav e anythi ng to do w it h her be cause she’s 14 a nd I’ve know her fam ily all my li fe. She is l ike fam ily3

to me. I drank a bot tl e of teq uila th a t n igh t b y my sel f. I a ls o had 10 or 12 beers a nd s moked some mar ihu ana. Late r that nig ht, [A.F .] w alk ed me t o Cody Bow ma n’s trailer w here I w ould stay period ically . At that time I rea lly did n’thav e no plac e to li v e. I w as sta y ing w it h my si ste r Gi na or

w it h Tig er or w it h C ody

. [A.F .] held onto m e and hel ped me w alk there becau se I w as pr etty mess ed up. W hen w e first g ot t her e, I tol d her how to cut[s ic ] t he l ig ht and t he ai r condi ti oner on. I w as so si ck

I coul dn’ t d o i t. I w ent i nto t he bedroom and lai d on the bed. I gotup and w ent to the bathroo m and t hr ew up. Then I w ent b ack

to bed. I heard [A .F .] in th e l ivin g ro om sno rt ing

. I pass ed outi n the bed. The next thi ng I k new I w oke up bec ause [A.F .] w as in bet w een my legs play ing w ith my penis. My upp er bod y

w as layi ng back o n t h e b e d a n d m y

fe e tw e r e o n t h e fl o o r
. [A

. F .] had ta k e n h e r c l o t h e s o ff and s he had pushe d my l eg s open and unz ipp ed my pant s. Then s he had or al sex w it h me. She kepttry ing to g et me aroused and she final ly di d. She climbe d on top of me and the n w e had interco urse. I w as erect and m y pen is w as in her vag ina bu t I never came . I w as so m essed u p t hat I couldn ’t come. [A. F. ] t old Sg t. Brow n tha t w e us ed a condo m but that is not tr ue. I w oul dn’ t hav e been phy si cal ly able to put one on. I pas sed out a g ain

. W hen I w oke u p the next mo rning, [A.F.] w as gone an d I tho ught I mu st have just dr eamed w hat h appened the n ig ht be fore. I nev er i ntended to hav e s ex

w it h [A.F .]. I t w as not c onsen sual on my par t.

. . . Serg eant Brow n tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t t old her thatA.F . v olu ntar il y

per formed oral
sex on h im a nd th at s he c li mbed on top o f him and they had int er course. A.F . t est ified thati n ear ly Ju ne of 2008, she w ent to her fr ien ds’ hous e to v is itw it h
one of her f riends. W hen her f riend did not sho w up, A. F. talked to the peo ple w ho were there. She s aw

appel lan t atthis house and tes ti fied th at he w as “d ri nki ng ” but n ot “ falli ng dow n dr unk. ” She sta ted t hat she did not t ake any co cai ne w it h her

and that she did not go there loo king fo r cocaine. At some poi n t , a p p e llant aske d A.F. to g o w ith him to P.’s house

. A.F . k new

P. and i ntended to g o the re w it h appel lan t t o v is itP. W hen they ar ri v ed at P .’ s h ouse, nobodyw as home. Appel lan t l ed A. F. i nto t he hous e, an d the y sa t on the couch and talked . Late r, the y we n t t o t h e ba ck bed room , w here app ellant took of f his cl othes

. A.F . t est ified that she hel ped him tak e off her cl othes

. They g ot on th e bed, and app ellant put his pen is into her v agina. A.F. te stif ied th at ap pellan t did no t “pass ou t” w hile she w as w it h hi m, and she sta ted t hat s he di d not“ force” hersel f upon hi m or “ straddl e”4

him. After

w ards, sh e g ot dress ed and w ent h ome. A.F .’ s neig hbor

and frie nd, Cour

tney Raw li ng s, tes ti fied that she nev er tri ed to g et p o w der ed c ocai ne for A.F

. Pr ior to appel lan t’ s a rrestfor t he i nst ant o ff ense, R a wlings ask ed appe ll ant, “‘ How co uld y ou sl eep w it h [A.F .] [?]’ ” He re pli ed, “‘ I’ m not say ing I di d, and I ’m n ot s ay ing I did n’t .’ ” In re spons e, Raw li ng s tol d him, “‘ Oka y . I al re ady kn ow that y ou d id.’” In reply , he said , “‘[I]t w asn’t su ppo sed to hap pen but she w ant ed it, to o.’” II. D I S CUS S I ON By a s ing le is sue, appel lan t c ontends the ev ide nce is i n suf fici ent t o es tabl is h tha t he i ntent ion all y

or kn ow ing ly

co mmitt ed th e offense of sex ual as saul t of a c hil d. A . L egal Su ff icien cy “W hen cond ucting a legal su f f iciency revi ew, a cou rt mustask w het her ‘ any rati onal trier of fact cou ld have foun d the essen tial elem ent s o f t h e c ri m e be y ond a reason able dou bt’–n ot w het her ‘ it

bel iev es that the e v ide nce at t ri al est abl is hed g u ilt bey ond a
reaso nab le dou bt.’” Laster v. Sta te , 275 S.W .3d 5 12, 5 17 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2009) ( q uoti ng Jackson v. Virginia , 4 4 3 U. S

. 3 0 7 , 3 1 8 -1 9 (1 9 7 9 )) (e m p h a s is in o ri gi n a l)

. “I n d o in g s o , we
assess a ll of

the evidence ‘in th e l ig h t m o s t favorable to th e prose cution .’” Id . ( q uoti ng Jac ks on , 443 U.S. at 319). “Af ter giv ing proper def eren ce to th e fact f inde r’s role, we w ill uphol d the v erdic t unl ess a rati onal fact fin der must hav e had re asona ble doubtas to any
essen tial elem ent .” Id . at518. B. A pp licab le L aw Our r ev iew of a leg al and fact ual suff ic ien cy chall eng e shoul d be ex amined under the p ri nci ple s o f rev iew

for a hy pothet ic all y cor re ct jur y ch arg e. Gr

otti v. Sta te , 273 S.W .3d 273, 280- 81 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2008)

. “‘ Such a c harg e [i s] one t hat a cc ur atel y se ts out t he5

law , i s a uthor iz ed by

the ind ictment, does not unnec ess ar il y inc re ase the S tate’ s b urden of proof, or

unnec ess ar il y

r est ri ct the S tate’ s t heor ies of li abi li ty , and adequa tel y des cr ibe s the p articular of

fense f or w hich th e de fend ant w as tried.’” Vi ll ar re al v. State , 286 S.W .3d 3 2 1 , 3 2 7 ( T e x. Crim

. Ap p
. 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g Ma li k v . St ate , 95 3 S. W .2 d 23 4, 24 0 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 199 7)). The in dic tmen t in t h is case all eg ed, i n rele v ant p art, that appel lan t: “d id then and there, i ntent ion all y

and know ing ly

ca use[ d] t he pene trati on of the se xual org an of [A. F. ],
a c hil d w ho w as then and th er e y oung er than 17 y ears o f age and not t he s pouse of the defend a n t, b y d e f endant’ s s ex ual org an. .
. .” I n order to conv ic t app ell ant o f sex ual
ass aul t of a c hil d, t he St ate w as re q uired to prov e bey ond a re asona ble doubtthathe int enti onal ly

or kn ow ing ly

ca use d t he pene trati on of the sex ual org an of a c hil d by any
means. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22.011( a) (2 )( A)

. A “ chi ld” i s a person y oung er than
sev enteen y ears o f age

. See id . § 22. 011 (c)( 1). Th e test imo ny of a child v ictim alon e is suffici ent t o s uppor

t a conv ic ti on for sex ual as saul t of a c hil d. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38 .07 (a) (Vernon 2 005 ). Sect ion 6. 03(b ) of

the cod e of

criminal proce dure provi des: A perso n acts kno w ingly , or w ith kno w ledge, w ith respe ct to th e na ture of his condu ct or to circumsta nces su rround ing his con duct w hen he is aw are of the nat ur e of hi s c onduc t or thatthe ci rc umstan ces ex is t. A person act s know ing ly , or

w it h know led g e, w it h resp ectto a resu ltof his condu ct w hen he is aw ar e tha t hi s c onduc t i s reason abl y ce rt ain to caus e the r esul t. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 6.03( b) ( Ver non 200 3)

. “A person act s i ntent ion all y , or w it h i ntent , w ith respe ct to the natu re of his condu ct or to a result of his condu ct w hen it is his conscio us objective or desire to engage in the cond uct or cause the result.” Id . § 6.0 3(a).T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 8. 04 (a) ( V ern on 20 03 ). 4 6 C. A nal ysis Ev ide nce w as pre sent ed at tri al thatA.F. w as fourteen y ears old at the time of the sexual assau lt and thatshe had never bee n ma rried to appe llant. A.F. te stif ied th at w hile at P.’s ho use, she w ent w ith ap pellan t to the back bedroo m, w here app ellant put his pen is into h er v agina. She testif ied th at ap pellan t w as “not f alling dow n drun k” an d tha t he d id not p ass out w hil e she w as w it h him at P.’ s house

. The tes ti mony of A .F

. alo ne is su ff ic ien t to s uppor

t t he findi ng of g uil t. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 38.07. W e not e tha t i n appel lan t’ s w ri tten sta tement, he s tated that he nev er int ended t o have sex w ith A.F. an d tha t he did not co nsen t to ha v ing sex w ith he r. H owev er, “[t]he jury is free to accep t or reject any or all of the evidence presen ted byeithe r party .” Barne s v. State , 6 2 S

. W

. 3 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 8 (T e x. A p p
. –A u s t in 2 0 0 1 , p e t

. re f ’d ). T h u s , t h e ju ry c o u ld h a ve rejecte d ap pellan t’s w ritten s t a t em ent and accep ted A.F.’s v ersion of the events. Furthe rmore , his st a t e m e n t s thathe did n ot inte nd to have sex w ith A.F. an d tha t he did not co n se n t t o hav ing se x w it h her

are c ontradi cte d by

R aw li ng s’ tes ti mony
. W hen Raw li ng s t old appel lan t t hat s he k new he h ad s lep t w it h A.F., he s aid , “ ‘[ I]tw asn’ t s uppos ed to ha ppen bu t s he w anted it , t oo.’ ” A ra ti onal jur y could in ter pr et hi s respon se to mean that he kn owi ngly

and inten tiona lly

participat ed in th e act of sex ual inte rcourse w ith A.F. Appel lan t c ontends he did not act int enti onal ly or k now ing ly

bec ause, by

r eason of his intoxication, he cou ld nothave consen ted to pen etrat ing A.F.’s sex ual organ. Howev er, there is no ev ide nce in thi s rec ord to show thatappel lan t bec ame i ntox ic ated involun tarily

. Vol untar y i ntox ic ati on i s n ot a defense to the commi ss ion of a cr ime, and ev ide nce of an

4
accuse d’s intoxication “ doe s not negate the elem ent s of inten t or knowl edge.” Haw kins v7

State , 605 S.W .2d 586 , 589 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 80). Viewing the evidence in the lig ht m ost fav or abl e to the v erdic t, w e ho ld that the e v ide nce is l eg all y su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he
conv ic ti on for sex ual as saul t of a c hil d bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. D. F act ual Su ff icien cy In a factual -s uff ic ien cy

r ev iew , t he onl y

q uest ion to be ans w er ed i s: “ Con si der ing all of the e v ide nce in a neutral li g ht, w as a jur y ra ti onal ly jus ti fied in findi ng g uil t bey ond a
reaso nab le dou bt? ” Gr otti , 273 S.W .3d at 2 8 3 . Ev iden ce can be de em ed f actu ally insuf f icient in two w ays: (1) “the ev iden ce supp orting the con v iction is ‘too w eak’ to supp ort the fact f inde r’s verdict;” or (2) “con sidering co nf licting evidence , the f act f inde r’s v erdict is ‘against the great w eight and prep ond eran ce of the evidence. ’” Laster , 275 S.W .3d at 518 (qu o ti n g W

ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404 , 414 -15 ( T ex. Crim. App

. 200 6)). W hen a court of appeal s c onduc ts a factual -s uff ic ien cy r ev iew , i t mus t defer

to the jur

y ’s findi ng s. Id

. T he co urt of

criminal app eals ha s “set out th ree ‘basic ground rules ’ im p le me nting this stan dard .” Id . (qu o ti n g W ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 414 ). First, the ap pellat e cou rt must
cons ide r all of the e v ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, as oppos ed to i n a li g ht mos t fav or abl e to the
v erdic t. Id

. Seco nd, the appel lat e c our t “ mayonl y

find t he ev ide nce factual ly i nsuffici ent
w hen nece s s a ry t o ‘ p rev ent man ifest injust ice.’” Id . (qu o ti n g Cai n v . St ate , 958 S.W .2d 404, 407 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997) ). Thi rd , t he appe ll ate c ourt m u st ex pla in w hy the
ev ide nce is too w eak to s uppor t the v erdic t or w hy

the confli cti ng ev ide nce g re atl y w eig hs ag ain st the v erdict. Id . Althou gh the verdict is af forde d less def eren ce d u rin g a factu alsuf f iciency rev iew , an ap pellat e cou rt is not f ree to “override the v erdict simp ly beca use it disagrees w ith it.” Id

. In t his ca se, the cont ra ry ev ide nce does not g re atl y outw eig h t h e e v ide nce that
a p p e ll a n tin t e n t io n a ll y a n d kn o win gl y se xu a ll y a s s a u lt e d A

. F

. T h e ju ry wa s f re e t o b e li e ve8

or di sbel iev e any

po rtio n of the w it ness ’ tes ti mony , and w e presume the j ur y r esol v ed confli cts i n fav or

of the p re v ail ing par

ty

. W o o te n v. Sta te , 2 6 7 S

. W

. 3 d 2 8 9 , 2 9 6 (T e x. App .–Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 8, pe t. ref ’d). Vi ew ing al l the e v ide nce neutrall y , w e c oncl ude t hat t he ev ide nce su p p o rt ing the conviction is not so w eak that the fact f inde r’s determ inatio n is clearly w rong and m anif estly unj ust , or

thatthe v erdic t i s a g ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. See Watson , 204 S.W .3d at 417 . W e ho ld tha t the ev id e n c e i s le gally and factu ally suffici ent t o s uppor

t t he c onv ic ti on for sex ual as saul t of a c hil d. See G ar ci a v . St ate , 563 S.W .2d 925 , 928 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78) ( hold ing tha t w hen v ictim test if ied th at de fend ant ’s
sex ual org an pene trated her se x ual org an, h er

tes ti mony , s tandi ng al one, is su ff ic ien t
e vid e n c e o f

p e n e t ra t io n ). W e o ve rr u le t h e so le is s u e fo r r e vie w. III . C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Deliv ered and f iled the 1st day of Apr il , 201 0.