### NUM BER 13-09- 168- 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
ROL A ND R . F ERN A ND EZ , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 87t h Dist rict C ou rt of B exar Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , 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, Rol and R . F er nandez , of tw elv e c ounts of ag g ra v ated
sex ual as saul t of a c hil d, see T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22.021 (V er non Su pp. 2 009) , and tw o c ounts o f

i ndece ncy

w it h a c hil d by

ex posure. See id . § 21. 11(a )(2)(A). Th e jury
ass ess ed puni shmentat tw enty -fiv e y ears’ i mpriso n m e n t for eac h c ount of ag g ra v atedT hi s app eal was t r ansf er r ed t o t hi s C our t f r om t he Four t h Cour t of Appeal s by or der of

t he T exas 1 S u p re m e C o u rt. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 2 2 .2 2 0 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 4 ) (d e l i n e a ti n g th e ju ris d i c ti o n o f a p p e l l a te c o u rts ); T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 73. 001 ( Ver non 2005) ( gr ant i ng t he su pr em e cou r t t he a ut hor i t y t o t r ansf er c as es fr om on e c ou rt of ap pe al s t o a no t he r at an y t i m e t ha t t he re i s “goo d c au s e” for t he t ran s fer).

B e c a u s e th e c o m p l a i n a n t, S .A ., i s a m i n o r, w e w i l l r e fe r to h e r b y h e r i n i ti a l s
. W e w i l l a l s o re fe r to 2 h e r m o th e r b y h e r in itia ls to p r o te c t h e r p r iv a c y. 2 sex ual as saul t of a chi ld and fiv e y ears’ i mpri sonmentfor e ach countof ind ecency w it h a chi ld. Al l of t he sent ences are to ru n conc ur re ntl y . In fiv e i ss ues, appel lan t c hal len g es the factu al suf

f iciency of

the evidence to supp ort his convictions and co mp lains tha t this Court l ac k s j ur i s di c ti on t o he ar t hi s a pp ea l

. W e affi r m. 1 I. F A CTUA L B A CKGRO UND A . St at e’s E v id ence W hen S. A. w as four or f iv e y ears old, her parent s div or ced, and she beg an l iv ing

2 in San A ntoni o w it h her mother , G .A. Bec ause G.A. w or ked, S.A . s pent ev er y othe r
w eeken d at the h ome of G.A. ’s si ste r- in-l aw , Sa li na F er nandez , and Sal ina ’s hus band, appel lan t. S.A

. te stified appel lan t s ex ual ly abus ed her

numerous ti mes du ri ng the
w eeken ds she spentw it h Sal ina and appel lan t. She did not re member the d ates thatthe
a b u s e o c c u rr e d ; h o we ve r, s h e t e s t if ie d t h e a b u s e h a p p e n e d wh e n sh e wa s b e twe e n f ive and s ix y ears o ld in 1999 and 2000. W hen S.A. w as tw elv e y ears old, she tol d her mother
som e of the de tails abo ut w hatapp ellanthad don e to he r. In Ma y 2006, G. A. c all ed th e San Antoni o Pol ic e D epar tment to repor

t a “s ex ual
ass aul t” of

S.A. Afterw ards, Of

ficer Gina Fl ores w ent to G. A.’ s h ouse and i nter v iew ed S. A. Off ic er F lores tes ti fied th at S .A. tol d her thatthe firs t i nci dent of sex ual abus e oc cur re d:
w hen t he aunt[Sa li na F er nandez ] l eft, sh e [S .A.] w as cal led to the bed. She w ent t o the bed and t he sus pect [appel lan t] took her sh orts off

. And I as ked,
“ W ha t ha pp en ed aft er th at ?” An d s he s ai d

. . . “ Tha t he s ta rte d to t ou c h me and he put h is fing er

dow n the re .’ ” And I as ked her , “ W here dow n the re ?” And s he s aid , “ In my

v ag ina .”T he t r i al cour t adm i t t ed S. A. ’ s sexua l
- exam i nat i on r epor t i nt o ev i dence as St at e’ s exhi bi t 3. 3 D r
. N ancy Kel l ogg t est i f i ed t hat Shi r l ey M enar d, a nur se pr act i t i oner , w or k ed at C hi l dSaf e f or abo ut 4 e i g h t y e a rs a n d re ti re d i n 2 0 0 7 “w i th m e d i c a l i s s u e s .” M e n a rd d i d n o t t e s ti fy i n th i s c a s e
. 3 Off ic er F lores tes ti fied th at S .A. tol d her aboutanot her

i nci dent w hen app ell ant “ lai d her on the bed and he sho w ed h er his pen is. .

. . [H]e took he r shorts of f and that ’s w hen he he ld her dow n on her

should ers, and . . . he stu ck his peni s . . . i n her

v ag ina .” S. A. t old Officer Fl ores that the s ex ual abus e s topped w hen Sa li na di v or ced appel lan t. After Det ect iv e J eff re y

Low der obta ine d s tatement s from S.A . and G. A., he referred both of them to the Chi ldren’ s Adv ocacy Center for C hil dSafe ( “C hil dSafe”)

. At s ome poi nt, app ellantspoke to Detect iv e Lo w de r ab outthe allegatio ns. W ith respe ct to this
conv ersat ion , D etec ti v e Low der tes ti fied th at: af ter I ha d r e ad th e allegation s set forth by the vi ctim, I allow ed Mr. Fer nande z[ a p p e l l a n t ] t o t e l l m e i f h e c o u l d e x p l a i n t o m e t h e a l l e g a t ion s themse lv es. An d he basi cal ly tol d me he had no ex pla nati on w hy sh e w as com ing fo rw ard and m aking su ch allegation s in reg ards to th e sexual natu re of the c ase. Dur ing thi s c o n v e rs a t i o n , a p p e l l a n tn e v e r s a i d a n yt h i n g d e ro g a t o r y a b o u tS

. A

. , a n d he never tried to tell Detect iv e Lo w der w hy he th ought S. A. w ould make these allegations. Salina Fernan dez te s t if ie d tha t app ellantperm ane ntly mo v ed o ut of the ho use in Dec ember

2000 and t hat s he and appel lan t divo rce d i n 2 0 01. She t est ified thatfor t he pe r i od o f t i me t ha t S. A. w as s pe nd i ng t he w ee k en ds w i th t he m, a pp el l an t w ou l d s ta y h om e
w hen s he l eft the house for an er ra nd. On cross -e x aminat ion , she tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t did not w ant t o “ sta y

home i n c harg e of the ki ds. ” Dr . N ancy

Kel log g , a professor

of pedi atr ic s w ho s erved a s C hil dSafe’s medi cal direct or , rev iew ed S. A.’ s s ex ual assaul t ex am, w hic h w as per formed on June 7, 20 06 by 3 Sh irle y Me n a rd

. W hen t he prosec utor as ked Dr . Ke ll og g to re ad w hat S .A. “t old the 44

ex aminer

under the his tor

y por ti on” of the e x am, s he s tated : Beca us e t h e y’r e going to che ck my priv ate s, my uncle mo lested me. He stu ck his fing er in my pr iv ates

. H e di dn’ t do itonc e. He did i t a lot , l ik e w hen my a un t w ou l d l ea v e. W ea r s ho rts a nd h e w ould t ake the m o ff an d my un de r w ea r
. H e w ou l d un z i p hi s pan ts and sh ow hi ms el f. He w ou l d ho l d me down. Som etim es he w ould lick me on the f ront private. He w ould stick his peni s i n me, but n ot al l the w ay i n. W hen the prosecut or asked Dr. Kellogg if S. A. “indicat e[d ] w here he [ap pellan t] w ould stick his peni s i n her ?” , s he s aid , “ Her frontand back

pr iv ates .” D r. Ke llo gg s tated thatthe phy si cal findi ng s o f S.A.’ s s ex ual -a ss aul t ex am w ere “n or mal. ” How ev er , she tes ti fied th at “i n c ases w here w e hav e his tor y of pe netrati on, w e hav e s omew here i n the nei g hbor hood of 85 to 9 0 p e rc e n to f

t hose ex am s are norm al.” On cross-ex am inatio n, w hen defense
couns el ask ed D r. Kel log g , “ [Y]our findi ng s a re co nsi ste nt with t h e al leg ati ons. I n oth er
w ords, they

co uld ha ve h appened?” , s he s aid , “ The al leg ati ons coul d hav e happe ned. Y es, that ’s the medic al opi nio n.” B. D ef ense Ev id ence Det ect iv e Low der

tes ti fied for the d efense th at S .A. tol d him “t hat t he first ti me that
an yt h i n g h a p p e n e d i n a p p ro p r i a t e l y , s h e w a s o n h e r a u n t ’ s [ S a l i n a ’ s ] b e d w h i l e her aunt
w as tak ing a show er [.] ” In that inc ide nt, appel lan t pic ked her up, p lac ed her dow n, he ld her dow n on the b ed, t ook off her sh orts and und er

w ear , pl a ce d o n e o f

h is fing ers i n her
v ag ina , and l ic ked her v ag ina

. De te cti v e Low der st ated that the “ sec ond t hin g ” S.A. menti oned t o him w as an i nst ance w hen s he w as in her co usi ns’ room, and appel lan t w as sitting in a chair. A tt h at tim e, ap pellan t exposed himse lf and told S.A . to kiss his penis. W hen D etec ti v e Low der as ked S.A. w hether

anythi ng happened in her co usi ns’ presenc e, she re spond ed w it h tw o separate inc ide nts

. Fi rs t, w hil e s he and her co usi ns w re stl ed w it h appel lan t, appel lan t pl aced one of hi s fin g ers i nsi de of her v ag ina. S e co n d , “w hil e the yA t t he t i m e o f t ri al , R

. F

. w as a m i no r. 5 A t t he t i m e o f t ri al , M

. F

. w as a m i no r. 6 A t t he t i m e o f t ri al , P

. F

. w as a m i no r. 7 5 w ould sit next to each other on the couch in the liv ing room , he [app ellant ] w ould place his hand i nsi de her

sh orts and di g it all y

penet ra te he r [S .A .].” She did tel l him that appel lan t “p enetrated herb o ttom[. ]” O n c ro ss -e x aminat ion , he sta ted t hat S .A. nev er “ dev iat e[d] f rom th e fact th at she told [him ] tha t [ap pellan t] ab used her w ith his pen is and wi th his fing er and w it h hi s mout h[.] ” Appel lan t’ s s on, R .F ., tes ti fied th at he di d notrecal l “w re stling a ro und,” “ pla y ing 5
around,” or

eng ag ing i n “ horsepl ay ” w it h S. A. o r appel lan t. H e re ca lle d s eei ng noth ing
sus pic iou s b etw een S. A. a nd appe ll ant. Appel lan t’ s nie ce, M. F. , tes ti fied that in 1997 w hen s he w as a y oung ch il d, ap pel lan t 6 and Sa li na l iv ed w it h her for a shor t time. M.F . state d that appell ant nev er touc hed her

or did an ything inap prop riate du ring tha t time f rame
. S he v isited Sa lina an d ap pellan t at the ir hom e in 199 9 an d 20 00 a nd n ever saw any i nap prop riate be havior. M. F. ’s si ste r, P.F ., tes ti fied th at s he w as four y ears old in 1997. She re membered 7 appel lan t, his w ife, an d the ir ch il dren s tay ing at the h ome i n w hic h s he l iv ed. She did not
re member appel lan t t ouchi ng her se x ual ly dur ing thatti me. Appel lan t testi fied that all of the all eg ati ons that S.A. m ade aga ins t him w ere fals e. He tes ti fied th at he nev er touc hed S. A. “ in an i nappropr iat e w ay ” and t hat h e nev er exposed himse lf

to her. On cross-examina tion, app ellanttestif ied th at abo ut March 200 0, he lef t the hou se
w here he li v ed w it h Sal ina . W hen the pros ecut or asked him, “ W ere y ou ev er left alo ne w it h the c hil dren, i ncl udi ng [S. A.]? ”, he s aid , “ Y es, ma’ am.” W hen as ked if he w oul d hav e been6

the o nly adul t w it h the ch il dren, h e s aid , “ Someti mes Tony w as there and someti mes Patr ic ia, Sal ina ’s si ste r w as there.” H e testif ied thathi s rela ti onshi p w it h S. A. w as “rela ti v ely

cl ose. ” II. D I S CUS S I ON A . Su ff icien cy

o f th e Ev id ence In issue one , app ellantchallen ges the factu al suf f iciency of the evidence to supp ort his convictions. 1. S ta nd ard o f Rev iew In a factual -s uff ic ien cy

rev iew , t he onl y

q uest ion to be ans w ered i s: “ Con si der ing all of the e v ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, w as a j ur y rati onal ly

just ified in f ind ing gui ltbey ond a
reaso nab le d oub t?” Gr otti v. Sta te , 273 S.W .3d 273 , 283 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08). Ev ide nce can be deemed factual ly insuffici ent in tw o w ay s: ( 1) “ the e v ide nce suppo rt ing the conv ic ti on is ‘t oo w eak’ to suppo rt the fact finder ’s v erdict;” or (2 ) “consid er ing conf licting evidence, the fact f inde r’s v erdict is ‘against the great w eig ht a nd prepon dera nce of the evidence .’” Laster v. Sta te , 275 S.W .3d 512, 518 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2009) ( q uoti ng W ats on v . St ate , 2 0 4 S

. W

. 3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4
- 1 5 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p
. 2 0 0 6 ) )

. W hen a court of appeal s conduc ts a factua l- suffici ency rev iew , i t mus t defer

to the j ur

y ’s findi ng s. Id

. The
c ourt of criminal app eals ha s “set out th ree ‘basic ground rules’ implem ent ing this stan dard .” Id . ( q uot in g W ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 414 ). Fi rst, the a ppe llate cou rt must
cons ide r all of the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, as oppos ed to i n a l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the
v erdict. Id

. Seco nd, the appell ate cour t “may only f ind the ev ide nce factual ly i nsuffici ent
w hen nece ssary t o ‘ p re ventman 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 our t mus t ex plain wh y t he7

ev ide nce is too w eak to suppor t t he v erdict 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 a f f o rd ed less de feren ce du ring a factu alsuf f iciency rev iew , an ap pellat e cou rt is not f ree to “override the verdict simply beca use it disagrees w ith it.” Id

. Our rev i e w o f a fa c t u a l s u ffi c i e n c y c h a l l e n g e s h o u l d b e e x a mi n e d u n d e r the pr inc ipl es of rev iew for a hy pothet ic all y cor re ct jur y charg e. Gr

otti , 273 S.W .3d a t 280 -8 1.

“‘ Such a c harg e [i s] one t hat a cc uratel y se ts out t he law , is author iz ed by the ind ic tment, does not u nnece ss ar il y i ncrease the S tate’ s burden of proof, or unnec ess ar il y rest ri ct the Stat e’s theo ri es of li abi li ty , and adeq uatel y des cr ibe s t he parti cul ar of fense for w hic h the def end antw as tried.’” Vi ll ar re al v. State , 286 S.W .3d 3 21, 3 27 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2009) (qu o ti n g Ma li

k v . St ate , 953 S.W .2d 234 , 240 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97)). 2. A pp licab le L aw -Agg rav at ed Sexu al A ssau lto f a C hi ld In c ounts one throug h s ix and eig ht t hroug h thi rt een, the jur y co nv ic ted a ppel lan t of tw elv e c ounts of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d. Sect ion 22.0 21( a) of the p enal co de provides, in relevant part, tha t a perso n com mits the of fense of aggravated se x ual assa ult of a chi ld if the person: (B ) i n t e n t io n a ll y o r k n o win gl y: (i) cause s the pe net ration o f t he anu s o r sexual organ of a child by any mea ns; (i i) caus es the penetrati on of the mouth of a ch ild by the s ex ual organ of the act or; (i ii ) caus es the sex ual org an of a chi ld to cont actor penet ra te t he mouth, anus, or

se x ual org an of anoth er person, i ncl udi ng the acto r; ( i v ) ca u s e s t h e a n u s o f a c h i l d t o c o n t a c t t he mouth , anu s, or sex ual org an of anoth er person, i ncl udi ng the act or ; or8 ( v ) caus es t h e mo u t h o f a c h i l d t o c o n t a c t the a nus or sex ual org an of anoth er

person, i ncl udi ng the act or ; and ( 2 ) i f: * * * (B ) the v ic ti m is y oung er than 14 y ears o f age

. . . . T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22.021( a) (1 )( B) (i )- (v ), ( 2) (B ). The tes ti mony of a chi ld v ic ti m al one is suffici ent to suppo rt a conv ic ti on for ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d. Per ez v. Sta te, 113 S. W .3d 8 19, 8 38 ( Tex

. App.–A ust in 2003, pet. re f'd); see T EX
. C OD E C R I M P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.07 (V er non 200 5) ; Tear v. State, 74 S.W .3d 555, 560 (Tex . App.–D all as 2002, pet.
re f'd). a. C ou nt s T hree, F ou r, Ten , &Ele v en To prov e c ounts three and ten a s set forth in the c harg e, t he St ate w as re q uired to esta blish be y ond a reaso nab le dou bt that ap pellan t “did inten tiona lly or know ingly

cause the p enetrati on o f

t h e f emale sex ual org an of [S. A.], a c hil d w ho w as y oung er than 14 y ears, by

[appell ant’ s] male sex ual org an, . .
. . ” To prov e c ounts four and el ev en as se t forth in the c harg e, t he St ate was re qui re d to est abl is h bey ond a re asona ble doubtthat app ellant“d id inten tiona lly or know ingly

cause the fem ale sexual organ of [S.A. ], a child
w ho was y oun ger than 14 y ears, to conta ct the male sex ual organ of [app ellant ], . . . .“ S.A. tes ti fied that on one occ asi on, appel lan t took off her sh orts and und er

w ear and that she saw

hi s e rect peni s. She sta ted t hat a ppel lan t “ pla ced iti n my v ag ina , buthe did n’tpl ace ital l the w ay i n w here i t c oul d hur

t.” W hen t he prosec uto r a sk e d S .A . how
m a n y t im e s sh e re c a ll e d a p p e ll a n tp la c in g h is p e n is in h e r vag in a , s h e s a id , “M o re t h a n f ive time s.” Based u pon S.A.’s test imo ny, a ration al jury could rea sona bly conclu de th at w hile S.A. w as y ounge r than fourteen y ears o f age , app ell ant ( 1) ca used the p enetrati on of9

S.A. ’s female s ex ual org an by hi s mal e s ex ual org an on at l easttw o oc cas ion s a nd ( 2)
c a u s e d S

. A

. ’s fe m a le se xu a l o rg a n t o co n t a c th is m a le s e xu a l o rg a n o n a tle a s ttwo occasio ns. b. Count s One, Tw o, Eight, & N ine To prov e count s one and eig ht as set forth in the charg e, the Stat e w as re q uired to esta blish be y ond a re ason able d oub t tha t app ellant“did in ten tiona lly o r know ingly

cause the p enetrati on of the anus of [S.A. ], a c hild who w as y oung er than 14 y ears, by [appel lan t’ s] m ale se x ual org an, .
. . . ” To prov e c ounts tw o and nin e as se t fort h i n the charge, the State w as required to esta blish beyond a rea sona ble do ubtthatapp ellant“did inten tiona lly

or know ingly

cause the an us of

[S.A. ], a child w ho w as y oun ger than 14 y ears, to c ontac t t he mal e s ex ual org an of [appe ll ant],

. . . .” W hen the pro secut or asked S.A. “[c]an y ou tell us if he [a ppe llant] e v er placed his peni s anyw here else? ”, she sa id, “ Y es. I n my bott om.” W hen as ked if sh e w as “famil iar
w it h the w ord anus ,” sh e s aid thatsh e w as. An d, w hen t he prosec utor asked her , “ Is that the a re a y ou’ re tal ki ng about ?” , s he s aid , “ Y es. ” She tes ti fied th at w hil e s he and appel lan t
w ere i n Sal ina ’s bedroom, “ [m]y sh orts w ere off

and myunderw ear

w ere of f, and he had turne d me ov er and he w as put ting h is p enis in m y bott om , and then he stop ped , like he’s alw ay s s topped. ” W hen as ked w hat she meant by “ he al w ay s s topped, ” she sai d, “ Lik e he
w oul d puti t i n, bu t he w oul dn’ t put it all the w ay to w here it w oul d hur t. And I felt that itw as
w et an d he w as up.” Sh e said thatthe “w etnes s” came from his peni s a nd th at w hen s he sai d tha t “ ‘he w as up,’ ” she meant “ that his peni s w as erect .” Regarding the nu mb er of times th is condu ct occurred , w e no te th at th e prose cuto r, before q uest ion ing S.A. about appell ant putti ng hi s p eni s i n her anus , had q uest ion ed S. A. about the n umber of t imes that appel lan t puthi s p eni s i n her v ag ina

. W hen t he prosec utor10

ask ed S. A. h ow

many ti mes appel lan t put his peni s int o her v ag ina , s he s aid , “ Mo re than fiv e ti mes.” Af

ter the prosec utor

f ini shed thi s l ine of q uest ion ing , he beg an q uest ion ing her about the i nci dents w hen app ell ant put his penis in her anus. W hen the prosec utor as ked her ho w man y times tha t hap pen ed, she said, “It w as less tha n the othe r times” but“more tha n on e time .” By

“other tim es” she w as referring to th e nu mb er of time s app ellantput his peni s i n her

v ag ina , w hic h w as “[ m]ore than fiv e ti mes.” Base d upon S.A. ’s tes ti mony , a ration al jury

could rea sona bly conclu de that w hile S.A . w as y oun ger than fourte en years
o f a ge , a p p e ll a n t(1 ) c a u s e d h is se xu a l o rg a n t o p e n e t ra t e S

. A

. ’s a n u s o n a tl e a s ttwo
o c casion s and (2) caused S. A.’s anu s to cont act his m ale sexual organ on a t least two occasio ns.
c . C o u n t s F i ve a n d T w e l ve To prov e c ounts fiv e and tw elv e as setforth i n the ch arg e, t he St ate w as re q uired to establish beyond a reaso nab le dou bt that appellan t “did inten tiona lly or know ingly

cause the p enetrati on of the female s ex ual org an of [S. A. ], a c h il d w ho w as y oung er than 14 y ears, by [app ellant ’s] f inge r,
. . . .” S.A. te stif ied th at w hile she and her cousin s w ere layi ng on a bed w ith the covers over the m, app ellantcame into the bed room and “put his fing er i n my v ag ina .” Sh e mov ed aw ay from him, a n d h e l eft the room. On an other
occ asi on, she a n d a p pel lan t w ere i n a b edroom w hil e appel lan t s lep t on the b ed. Her
cous ins w ere al so in thi s b edroom, pl ay ing v ide o g ames. She tes ti fied that w hil e she sat on th e be d, ap pellan t “w oke u p an d . .

. like, puthis hand in my shorts an d he had put his fing er i n my v ag ina , and i t hur

t s o I mov ed aw ay

and I g ot up .” Sh e recou nted another inc ide nt w hen her

co usi ns w ere outsi de the hous e and Sal ina w as at H EB. She sai d tha t
as she w alk ed i nto S ali na’ s b edroom, appel lan t pul led dow n her shor ts and und er

w ear and sta rt ed “ putti ng [hi s fin g ers] in mypr iv ates .” By “ p riva te s” she meant he r “v ag ina area.”11

She tes ti fied that she coul d feel his fing ers ins ide of he r v ag ina

. W hen th e pro sec utor asked her, “How

man y times d id he do that to y ou? ”, she said, “W ell, tha t exactly , proba bly
a cou pl e o f

t im es.” She a lso testif ied th at “[i]t w ould some time s hap pen in my cousin s’
ro om.” W hen t he prosec utor ask ed her to “[ t]el l us about the t ime that ithappen ed i n y our cousin s’ room[ ,]” she said thatapp ellantw as sitting in a rocking chair, w atch ing T V. W hile she saton h is l ap, faci ng hi m, “ he puthi s fin g ers in [her ] v ag ina area.” Sh e tes ti fied th at she felt his f ingers inside of her vag ina. W hen the pro secut or asked her, “Beside s these tw o ti mes, did he e v er

put his fing er

i n y our va gin a a re a as y ou des cr ibe d?” , s he s aid , “Y es. ” H ow ev er , s he c oul d notremember how many ti mes t h is happ ened. W hen t he prosec utor

as ked her , “ Cou ld itbe more tha n ten or les s than ten?” , s he s aid , “ Mo re than f iv e.” Based upo n S.A .’s testim ony, a rationa l j u ry could reason ably conclude thatw hile S.A. w as y oung er

than four

teen y ears of ag e, appel lan t on at leas t tw o oc cas ion s c aused the p enetrati on of S.A .’ s female se x ual org an by hi s fin g er
. d. C ou nt s Si x an d Th irt een To prov e c ounts si x

and thi rt een as set forth in the c harg e, t he St ate w as re q uired to est ablish b eyond a reaso nab le dou bt tha t app ellant“did inten tiona lly or know ingly

cause the female se x ual org an of [S. A.], a c hil d w ho w as y oung er than 14 y ears, to c ontac t t he mouth of [ appel lan t],

. . . .” W hen the prosec utor ask ed S. A. i f appell ant h ad ev er touc hed her w it h any

othe r par

t of his body , s he s aid , “ Hi s mout h.” Sh e tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t “w oul d puti t on myva g ina .” She stat ed that he did this “[m]ore than fiv e ti mes” w hil e s he
w as on Salina’s be d. W hen the pro secut or asked if she “rem em ber[e d] ho w . . . he puthis mouth on you r v ag ina ?” , she sai d he “w oul d puthi s mout h and he w oul d s tar t l ic ki ng me, . . . .” Base d upo n S.A. ’s testim ony, a ration al jury could reason ably conclude thatw hile S.A. w as y oung er

than fourt een y ears of ag e, appel lan t on at lea st tw o occ asi ons caus ed12

S.A. ’s female s ex ual org an to co ntac t hi s mout h. 3. A pp licab le L aw -I nd ecen cy Wit h a C hi ld b y

Exp osu re In c ounts se v en and fourteen , t h e j u ry c o n v ic ted a ppel lan t of tw o c ounts of ind ecency

w it h a c hil d by

ex posure. Sect ion 21.1 1 of the penal c ode prov ide s t hat a person commi ts the o ff ense of indec ency w it h a c hil d by

ex posure “ if, w it h a c hil d y oung er than 17 y ears o f age , . . . t h e p e rso n : . . . (2 ) w it h i ntentto arouse or g ra ti fy the s ex ual desire of any person: (A) ex pose s t he perso n’s anu s or any part of the pe rson’s genitals, knowing th e c h il d is presen t: . . . .” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 21.11( a) (2 )( A) ; see Br eck enr idg e v . St ate , 40 S.W .3d 1 18, 1 28 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Antoni o 2000, pet. re f’d)

. A fact finder

ca n i nfer the req uis it e, spec ificintentto arouse or grati fy the sex ual desire of any perso n “f rom th e def end ant ’s cond uct, remarks, an d all surround ing ci rcumst ance s.” Id

. (ci ti n g Mc Kenz

ie v. State , 617 S.W .2d 211, 216 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1981) ). The t est imony of a chi ld v ic ti m al one i s s uff ic ien t t o s uppor t a conv ic ti on for ind ecency w it h a c hil d. P e r

e z, 113 S. W .3d a t 838 ; see T EX
. C OD E C R I M P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 38.07; Tear, 74 S.W .3d at 560. To prov e c ounts se v en and fourteen as se t forth in t h e c harg e, t he St ate w as
re q uired to es tabl is h bey ond a re asona ble doubtthatappel lan t “ did , w it h t h e i ntentto
arouse or

g ra ti fy the s ex ual des ire of anyperso n, ex pose par t of hi s g eni tal s, know ing that [S.A .] a f emale chi ld y oung er than sev enteen (1 7) y ears a nd notthe spous e of [appel lan t]
w as prese nt, . . . .” S.A. tes t i fi e d t h a t o n o n e o c c a s i o n w h i l e h e r c o u s i n s p l a y e d v i d e o g a me s in the l i v i n g ro o m, s h e w a s l y i n g o n t h e e d g e o f S a l i n a ’ s b e d

. S h e s t a t e d t h a ta p p e l l a n tt o o ko ff her sh orts and und er

w ear and that she saw

his e re ct penis. Sh e s tated thaton a nother
occ asi on, s he and appel lan t w ere i n the l iv ing ro om, pla y ing

. Dur ing thi s e ncoun ter , s he sai d h e “ h a d h i s p e n i s o u t ” a n d a s k e d h e r t o k i s s i t

. S h e r e fu s e d a n d t u rn ed her head13

away . W hen t he p rosecu tor asked her, “Do y ou rem em ber at th at tim e w hen he ha d his peni s o ut, w hether

i t w as e re ct , whe th er

i t w as up?” , s he s aid , “ Y es, I re member

. . . .” Base d upon S.A. ’s tes ti mony , a ra ti onal tri er of f actcould find bey ond a re asona ble doubt that appe l l a n t o n a t l e a s t tw o o c c a s i o n s , w h i l e k n o w i n g t h a t S

. A

. , a c h i l d y o u n g e r than
se v e n t e e n y e a rs o f a g e a n d n o t h i s s p o u s e w a s p r e s e n t , e x p o s e d p a rt o f h i s g eni tal s t o her w it h i ntentto arouse or g ra ti fy sex ual des ire. In chal len g ing the factual suff ic ien cy of the ev ide nce, appel lan t c ontends : (1 ) S.A.
w as the onl y w it ness to tes ti fy that the sex ual abus e oc cur re d; ( 2) both Sal ina F er nandez and her so n, R .F ., w ho w ere presentw hen S. A. s tay ed th e w eeken ds at t hei r house , nev er “s aw or percei v ed anythi ng unus ual ” occ ur betw een S.A. and appell ant; ( 3) there w as no phy si cal ev ide nce that any se x ual as saul ts occ ur re d; ( 4) S.A . t old D etec ti v e Low der that the f irst time tha t app ellantsex ually abu sed h er w as wh e n S a li na was in the shower; how ev er , S. A. t old Officer F lores that ithappen ed w hen Sa li na l eft the h ouse to r un
er ra nds; ( 5) appel lan t nev er threatened S.A

. o r to ld her anythi ng “ dur ing mostof the epi sodes des pit e the fact that his sons w ere pres ent and on occ asi on his w ife,” Sal ina ; ( 6) S.A. ’s fa t h e r w o u l d s o me t i me s s t a y w i t h S

. A

. a t t h e h o me o f S a l i n a a n d a p p e l l a nt; (7 ) Sal ina tes ti fied th at w hen S.A. sta y ed at her home, she “a ppeared” happy , w ell -a dju ste d, and nev er

tr ied to hid e f ro m appel lan t; (8) Sali na testi fied that appell ant did not l ik e s tay ing at ho me w ith the kids “and w ould some time s” do the e rrands and go to H.E.B. ; (9) Salina’s son, R .F ., nev er

sa w anythi ng su spi ci ous or

inappropr iat e betw een S. A. a nd appe ll ant; (1 0) S.A. ’s se x ual -a ss aul t ex am w as nor mal; (11) appell ant denie d that he had ev er ex posed his geni tal s to S.A.; and (12) appell ant denie d that he had ev er touc hed S. A. i n a s ex ual
manner or i n any i nappropr iat e manner. Ini ti all y , w e not e tha t t he j ur y i s t he s ole j udg e of the credibility

of the w itnesse s a nd the weig ht to be giv en the e v iden ce, and may choose14

to bel iev e all , some, or

none of it. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 38 .04 (Vernon 197 9); Ma rg ra ves

v. Sta te , 34 S.W .3d 9 12, 9 19 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2000) ; Rachal v. Sta te , 917 S.W .2d 7 99, 8 05 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996) . T h u s, the jur y i s p er mitt ed to bel iev e or dis bel iev e any

par t of the tes ti mony

of any w it ness
. Jones

v. Sta te , 984 S.W .2d 2 54, 2 58 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1998) ; Per ez , 113 S.W .3d a t 838

. “R econc il iat ion of ev ide nti ar y co nflicts is sol ely a functi on of the tr ier of fact”

. Per

ez , 1 1 3 S. W .3 d at83 8 (cit in g Losad a v . St ate , 721 S. W .2d 3 05, 3 09 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1986) ). The jur y could hav e ac cept ed th at po rt ion of S.A.’ s t est imony

as su ff ic ien t t o s u ppor t t he c onv ic ti ons and di sreg arded t he inc onsi ste nci es. “ A dec is ion i s n ot mani fe st ly unjus t bec ause the j ur y resol v ed th e
ma ni f e s t ly conf licting v iew s of the evidence in fa v or of the St ate .” Cain , 958 S.W .2d a t 409. Vi ew ing al l of t he ev ide nce neutrall y , w e c oncl ude t hat t he ev ide nce suppo rt ing the convictions is not so weak t hatt he jury ’s d ete rmina tions are clearlyw rong and m anif estly unj ust , or

thatthe v erdict i s a g ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. W e, t herefore, hol d tha t t he ev ide nce is factual ly su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he c onv ic ti ons for ind ecency

w it h a c hil d by

ex posure and for ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d. Iss ue one is ov er ru led

. B. Jurisdic tion In issue s tw o throu gh five, app ellantchallen ges this Court’s ju risdiction over his appeal

. He cont ends that chap ter 73 of the Tex as Gov er nment C ode v iol ates the Eq ual Prote ction Clause of

t he United S tate s Co nstitu tion, b ecau se it d oes notg iv e prop er ef fect to the v oters of Tex as w ho el ectthe jus ti ces of the i nter mediat e appel lat e c our ts. See U .S. C ON ST . amend. X IV.; T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 73.001 (V er non 2005). He al so arg ues that thi s Cou rtl ack s j ur is dicti on ov er hi s a ppeal bec ause the Tex as Supreme C our t’ s o rd er ofS e e a ls o A ro c h a v . S ta te , N o. 08- 07- 00108
- C R 200 9 W L 18 83733 , at * 4 ( T ex. App. –El Paso Jun e 8 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 ), ( m e m o p .) ( n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ); pet

. dism ’ d i m pr ovi dentl y gr ant ed , 201 0 W L 26 18421 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. June 30, 2010)

. I n Arocha , t h e C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s g ra n te d d i s c re ti o n a ry re v i e w to det er m i ne whet her t he E i gh t h C ou rt of Appeal s er r ed i n r ej ect i ng Ar ocha’ s j ur i sdi ct i onal ar gum ent s on t he basi s of a pr ocedur al def aul t , howev er , upo n r ev i ewi ng t he r ecor d, i t concl uded t hat gr ant i ng Ar ocha’ s pet i t i on w a s i m p ro v i d e n t. A ro c h a v . S ta te , (N o. P D -11 89 -90 ) 201 0 W L 2 61 84 21 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. Ju ne 30 , 20 10 ). 15 tr a n sfer i s u ncons ti tuti onal under the Tex as Con sti tuti on due to a confli ct betw een t he Tex as Con sti tuti on and chapt er 73 of the Tex as Gov er nment C ode. H e furt her arg ues that thi s C our t l ack s j ur is dicti on ov er

hi s appeal because the ord er of trans fer v iol ates the Eq ual P rotect ion an d Due Cou rse of Law provisi ons o f

the T exas Constitut ion an d is a v oid exercise of

legi slative autho rity

ov er the jud iciary in v iolation of the Sepa ration of Powers prov is ion cont ain ed in arti cl e II, sec ti on 1 of the Tex as Con sti tuti on. See T EX
. C ON ST . ar t. II § 1. He requests th at w e transf er this app eal ba ck to the Fourth Cou rt of Appe als. The Tex as Supreme C our t may transfer ca ses to thi s C our

t, p u rsu a nt t o s ect ion 73.00 1 of t he Te x as G ov er nm en t C od e, “ ata ny t i me t ha t, i n th e op i ni on o f t he s up r em e court, there is good cau se for transfer.” T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 73.001. Se cti on 73. 002 8 of the g ov er nment c ode prov ide s t hat t he transferee c our t of appeal s “ has jur is dicti on of the case w ithou t rega rd t o t he d istrict in w hich th e case orig inally w as tried an d to which iti s retur nabl e on appeal .” T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 73 .00 2. App ellantargues his
cons ti tuti onal i ss ues as chal len g es to our jur is dicti on. Generall y , a par ty is not req uired to preser v e a c hal len g e to the cour t of appeal s’ j ur is dicti on. See; e.g., Ar ocha v. State , N o. 08- 07- 00108- CR2009 W L 18837 33, a t * 5 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Paso June 30, 2009) ( mem op.) (n ot de si g nated for publ ic ati on) ; pet. dis m ’ d i m p r o v i de ntl y g ra nted , 2 0 1 0 W L 2 6 1 8 4 2 1 (T e x. C r i m. Ap p. J une 30, 20 10). How ev er , t he Ei g hth C our t of Appea ls i n Ar

ocha co ncl uded tha t const itut io n a l ju risdictiona l challenges such as this mu st be pre serv ed, beca use “[ e]v en i f sect ion 73.0 01 i s u ncons ti tuti onal as appl ied to [Arocha] , w e w o u ld not be div est ed of j ur is dicti on” under se cti on 73. 002. Id

.16

The proper

procedu re for o btai nin g a t ra nsfer betw een appel lat e cour ts is by moti on to t he Tex as Supreme C our t. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 73 .0 01

. Th e Tex as S up r em e Court ha s estab lished th e followi ng procedu re for a transf er:

The par ty req uest ing transf e r sh o u ld file a c opy of the mot ion to tr ansfer i n eac h of the tw o c our ts of appeal s, ask ing that , w hen t he moti on is forw arded t o the Supreme Co u rt , e a ch cour t of appeal s a dv is e the Suprem e C our

t i n w ri ti ng w hether

i t has any

obj ect ion to the p ro posed transf er. Any briefs in f avor of t he prop osed t ransfer sh ould also be f iled in each cour

t of appeal s and forw arded w it h the transfer moti on. W e w il l then have the mo tion, the briefs, and the com me nts of the two courts of

app eals in det ermin ing w het her to grant th e mo tion to transfer. Id . ( ci ti ng Miles v. For

d Motor C o. , 914 S.W .2d 135, 137 n.2 ( Tex . 199 5) ). F ail ure to follo w the e sta bli shed procedu re resul ts in failu re to preser v e compl ain ts about the t ra nsfer of an app eal. See id

. If app ellanthad followed the required proce dure byf iling a mo tion to transfer, his compl ain ts about the c onst it uti o n a lityof sec ti on 73. 001 w oul d be re medied

. Id

. Al ter native ly, if hi s mot ion to transfer w as deni ed, t his C our t w oul d be in a pos it ion to add ress the co nstitu t io n a l issues. I d

. W e c oncl ude app ell ant d id not fol low the proper proce dure requesting tran sfer, and therefore, his com plaintis not preserved. W e overrule is sues tw o throug h fiv e. 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). Del iv ered and filed the 19th day of Aug ust , 201 0.