### NUM BER 13-07- 0045 4-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 - 

## E D I N B U R G
EDW A RD L EE R OBIN SON , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 15 6t h D is tr ic t C o u rt

of B ee Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez A j ur y co nv ic ted a ppella n t, E d w ard R obi nson, of one c ount of ag g ra v ated sex ual
assau lt of

a child und er fourte en years of age and a ssessed pun ish m e n t a t ten y ears’ impr is onment. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22. 021( a) (2 )( B) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008)

. The trial court signed a judgm ent of conviction a n d s ent ence in accorda nce wi th th e jury ’s2

v erdict. By a single issue, Edward challen ges the factu al suf f iciency of

the evidence
s up po rti ng h i s c on v i c ti on . W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND T h e se xu a l a s s a u lt a ll e ge d ly o c c u rr e d in A u gu s t2 0 0 6 , wh e n F. R. , E d wa rd ’s si xy ea r- ol d da ug ht er , s pe nta w ee kw i th E dw ard i n Be ev i l l e, Te x as . Afte r F .R

. r et ur ne d ho me to A .R ., her

m other , s he out cr ied , and A.R . c ontac ted t he aut hor it ies

. Edw ard w as ind ic ted on two co unt s o f

a gg rav ate d sexual assau lt of a child; he plead ed n ot guilty to bot h cou nts,
a n d t h e ca s e wa s t ri e d b e fo re a ju ry. After bei ng q uest ion ed by the tr ial co urt abo ut t he di ffer ence betw een t he tr uth a nd lies, F.R. testif ied th at she w as seven y ears old at the time of trial, Edward w as he r fa the r, and s he had tw o broth e rs, L .R ., a ge s ix , and I. R. , ag e four. F .R . furt her tes ti fied th at Edw ard di d notl iv e w it h A. R. and her brothers; ins tead, he li v ed w it h hi s father i n Beev il le. F. R. tes ti fied th at s he and her brothers w oul d v is itEdw ard and that dur ing one visi t, she
w as layi ng on Edward’s bed w ith him when he m ade her “suck on his w ee-wee” becau se “h e s aid i t feltg ood.” D ur ing thi s i nci dent, F .R .’ s y oung er bro th e rs were l a y ing on a ma tt r es s o n th e fl oo r

o f t he s am e roo m. Rud olfo Go nz ale s, a San Antonio pol ic e of ficer , testi fied th at on Aug ust11, 2006, he r e s p o n d e d t o a c a l l fro m A

. R

. r e g a rd i n g a r e p o rt o f s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f a c h i l d

. O ff ic er Gon z ales vi sited wi th A.R. a n d F.R., and he instruct ed A. R. to take F.R. to San ta Rosa Chi ldren’ s H ospi tal for a n ex aminat ion and to c ontac t t he Bee v il le Pol ic e D epar tment. A. R. te st if ie d th a t s h e an d E d wa rd w e re m a rrie d f ro m Oc to b e r 19 9 9 th ro u gh Febr uar y 2007 and t hat t hey

w e re “al w ay s s eparati ng and then g etti ng bac k t og ether .”P a d ro n ’ s in te rv i e w w i th F .R . w a s r e c o rd e d o n to a D V D

. T h e S ta te o ff e re d th e D V D a s a n e x h i b i t, 1 but t he t r i al cour t den i ed i t s adm i ssi on. 3 Af ter the div orce, th e children visited Edward in B eeville ab outonce a mo nth . In August 2006, the c hil dr en s tay ed w it h Edw ard for a w hol e w eek. A.R

. tes ti fied that the d ay after the c hil dr en retur ned from thei r w eek- lon g v is itw it h Edw ard, s he and the c hil dr en w er e at the ir dinner tab le eat ing l unch , discussing how Edward cooke d food , w hen F.R. said Edw ard di d tw o thi ng s that she did not li ke; F. R. sai d the sec ond w as maki ng her finis h her pla te of food and Edw ard had promis ed notto do the f irst thi ng ag ain

. A.R . w as conc er ned abo ut w hat the “f irst thing” might b e , a nd sh e talke d to F.R. in priv ate . In priv ate , A.R. te st if ied thatF .R . t old her thatEdw ard “ put h is w ee- w ee i n my mouth. ” A.R . t hen as ked F.R ., “ D oe s y ou r da dd y ev er to uc h y ou ?” F .R

. r es po nd ed , “ y es ,” an d r ub be d he r cr otch
ar ea ov er

her cl othes

. A.R . c all ed her boyfrie nd, w ho i nst ru cte d her to dia l 9- 1- 1. A.R . furt her

tes ti fied th at O ff ic er

Gonz ale s res ponded to the c all , s poke w it h F .R ., and i nst ru cte d A. R. to tak e F. R. to the hospi tal for a n ex aminat ion

. A.R . t ook F. R. to the hospi tal , w her e F .R . w as ex amined bya sex ual as saul t nurse ex aminer or “ SAN E nurse. ” A.R . al so took

F .R . t o a C hil d Protec ti v e Ser v ic es (“ C. P.S. ”) w or ker and a c ounse lor

. On
cross -e x aminat ion , A. R. tes ti fied th a t s h e w a s e n g a g e d t o Br ian , Ed w ard’s st epbrother , and the tw o had d ate d and lived t ogethe r “on -and -of f” for t he pastyear. A .R. testif ied th at F.R.
w as Edw ard’s ch il d, bu t s he di d notkn ow w hether Edw ard father ed her other tw o c hil dr en. Irma Padro n, a C.P. S. investigator, testif ied th at she receiv ed a report of possible abuse r eg ardin g F .R

. a nd beg an an inv est ig ati on. Padron i nter v iew ed F .R ., A.R ., and F. R. ’s si bli ng s. After the int er v iew s, Padron conc lud ed that there w as “reason to bel iev e” 1 abu se ha d occu rred. Pad ron drafted a rep ort and co nf erred w ith law enforcem entof

f icials. Reb ecc a Pena, a SAN E nurse at Santa Ros a Chi ldren’ s H ospi tal , t est ified thatsh eS e e g e n e ra ll y , M ira n d a v . A riz. , 38 4 U

. S

. 43 6 (19 66 ). 2
4 spoke to F.R. alone . P ena a sked F.R. why sh e cam e to th e ho spital, a nd F.R. replied , “I told Mom ma thatDaddy told me som etim es to suck on his w ee-wee. I told him I don’t like it but he say s it fe el s g o o d

. He said okay, but he said y ou h ave to tell me if y ou to ld any one el se. ” Pena ex amined F .R ., took DN A s amples , and dete rmi ned t hat F .R . di d not hav e any i nju ri es. Mi chael W il low , a det e ct iv e w it h the Beev il le Pol ic e D epar tment, tes ti fied he
re cei v ed a re por

t of a s ex ual assaul t of

a chi ld thathad all eg edl y oc cur re d i n Beev il le from C.P. S. D et ec ti v e W i l l ow r ev i ew ed t he C .P .S

. r ep or t, a r ep or

t by t he S an A nt on i o Police Depa rtme nt, a DVD of

F.R.’s i nte rv iew

w ith Pad ron, a SA NE repor t , a n d D NA sam ples. Det ect iv e W il low

then concl uded that there w as pro babl e cause to obtai n an arrestw ar ra nt. Edw ard w as ar re ste d and g iv en w ri tten Mi ra nda w ar nin g s. H e s ig ned a v olu ntar y w ri tten 2 st a te m e n t, w h ich w a s a d m it te d in to evid e n ce an d rea d to th e ju ry, st a ti n g: My kids stayed w ith me for a w eek. My w ife an d I usua lly mee t half

w ay in Floresvi lle f o r a c h il d exchange. I think th at is w here I picked th em up this ti me. I tol d D etec ti v e W il low thatI dr ink

a l ot an d I hav e a bad dr ink ing habi t. T here are time s t hat I wake up the followi ng d ay no t reme mb ering w hatI did the n ig ht be fore. Al most ev er y day of the w eek that m y ki ds w er e dow n, I re member w aki ng up with m y daug hter i n bed w it h me. Someti mes, I w as cl othed and s ometi mes I w asn’ t. I don ’tr emember tr y ing to make a mov e on mydaug hter

. If I w er e s ober , I kn ow thatI w oul d notdo a nythi n g l ike t hat. I hav e a g ir lfri end t hat w ill giv e me a blo w j ob anyti me thatI w ant o ne s o I don ’t t hink tha t I w ould d o tha t if I were drunk. My

dau ghter has ne v er told me thatI did anyt hing like that bu t she goes an d tells her m om w ho in tu rn tel ls me. I c an ’ t ac tu all ysa yt hat i t i s h ard to b el i ev e th atI w ou l d do t hi s t o my daug hter bec ause of mydr ink ing habi t, but I bel iev e tha t m y mother i n l aw has a lot to do w ith it. I believe that she is tr y ing to brainw ash m y

dau ghter. I try to stay aw ay f rom my kids as m uch a s possible so that they can’t ma ke thes e ac cus ati ons. M y w ife [A .R .] g ot mad at me becau se I d id n ’t w ant t o5

hav e [t he c hil dr en] for

tw o months out of thi s s ummer so I bel iev e tha t s he is ups et an d i s d oin g thi s o n pur pose. My m in d se tis t h a tI t h in kt h e ya r e f u c k in g m e o ve r b e c a u s e t h e y kn o w I hav e a dr ink ing probl em and I don’tw ant to bel iev e tha t t hese acc usat ion s ar e tr ue. I t old D etec ti v e W il low that I know how I am w hen I g et home from the b ar , I tol d hi m thatI am usu all y hot and hor ny

and th a t so m e ti m es, I w ake up notkn ow ing wh e re t h e hell I am at or kn ow ing how

I g ot w her e I w as. I know that I w ould not jum p in bed and pull my damn dick out an d tell mysi x y ear ol d daug hter

to suc k mydick

. My

daught er

w as abl e to desc ri be my p en i s b ec au s e my

k i ds s ee me n aked al l t he t i me . I k no w t ha t my da ug ht er i s r ea l s ma rt. L i k e I to l d y ou b efo r e, I k no w h ow I am w he n I c om e hom e f rom th e ba rs but I can’t b elieve that I w ould do an y thing like this. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion by defense couns el, D etec ti v e W il low tes ti fied th at, ex ceptfor Edw ard, he di d not inter v iew anyof the occ upants of

the house w her e the alleg ed s ex ual
ass aul t t o o k p l a c e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , h e d i d n o t h a v e t h e D N A s a mp l e s t e s t e d b e c a u s e “ the all eg ati ons w er e made a few day s a fter the actual of

fense oc cur re d” and he “ bel iev e[d] that itw oul dn’ t hav e been per ti nent to t his ca se. ” Leonard R o bin son, Edw ard’s father and the o nly

defense w it ness , t est ified that Edw ard l iv ed w it h hi m “ on- and- off ” for th ree t o f o u r y ears; that Edw ard’s g ir lfri end, Veron ica, and her tw o tee nage children also liv ed wi th him ; and in August 200 6, Ed w ard’s three c hil dr en v is it ed th e hous e. Leonard furt her tes ti fied th at all the chi ldren s tay ed i n one bedroom, buti n the mor nin g t h e y wou ld be i n Edw ard and Veroni ca’ s b edroom “ all ov er the flo or , bed , ev er

yw her e.” In a si ng le charg e, Edw ard w as charg ed w it h tw o count s of ag g ra v ate d sex ual
ass aul t. The jur

y found Edw ard g uil ty on the firs t count and notg uil ty on t he s econd co unt. It ass ess ed puni shmentat ten y ears’ co nfinement in the Inst it uti onal Div is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju st ic e. The tr ial co urt s ig ned a jud g ment of co nv ic ti on and6

sent ence acc ordin g to the j ur y ’s v erdic t. This appeal , w h ic h c hal len g es the fact ual suffici ency

of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing Edw ard’s co nv ic ti on, e nsued

. II. D I S CUS S I ON W hen c onduc ti ng a fact ual -suff ic ien cy r ev iew , w e v iew

al l of the ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht. Ladd v

. St ate , 3 S.W .3d 5 47, 5 57 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999). W e will s e t the
v e rd ic t as ide onl y

i f (1) the ev ide nce is so w eak that the v erdic t i s c lea rl y w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust , or

( 2) the v erdic t i s a g ain st the g re at w eig ht and pr eponderance of the
e v i d e n c e. Jo h n so n v. State , 23 S. W .3d 1, 11 (T ex. C rim. App . 200 0). Under the f irst p ro n g o f Johns on , w e can not conclud e tha t a convict io n is “cl early w rong” or “man ifestly unj ust ” si mply

bec ause, on t he q uantum o f e v ide nce admit ted, w e w oul d hav e v oted to acq uithad w e been on th e j ur y . W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 16 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2 0 0 6 )

. U n d e r

t h e s e c o n d p ro n g o f Johns on , w e c annot decl ar e tha t a confli ct in the
ev ide nce jus ti fies a new tr ial si mply

bec ause w e disag re e w it h the j ur y ’s resol uti on of that confli ct. Id

. Before findi ng thatev ide nce is factu a lly i nsuffici ent t o s uppor t a v erdic t und er

the
s e c o n d p ro n g o f Johns on , w e must be abl e to say , w it h s ome obj ect iv e bas is i n the r ecord, that the g re at w eig ht an d pr eponderance of t he ev ide nce cont ra dic ts the jur y ’s v erdic t. Id

. In c onduc ti ng a fact ual -s uff ic ien cy rev iew , w e mustal so dis cus s t he ev ide nce that,
acc ordin g to the a ppel lan t, most under mines the ju ry’s verdict

. See S im s v . St ate , 99 S.W .3d 600 , 603 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03). “A ppel lat e c our

ts shoul d afford al most compl ete d eferenc e to a jur y ’s dec is ion w hen tha t decision is base d upo n an e v alua tion o f credibility .” Lanco n v

. St ate , 253 S.W .3d 6 99,7

7 0 5 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 8 )

. “ Th e j u r yis in the bes tp o s i t i o n t o j u d g e t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f a
w it ness bec ause iti s p re sentto hear the tes ti mony , as oppos ed to an a ppel lat e c our t w ho relies on th e cold reco rd.” Id . T h e jur y may ch oose to be li ev e s ome tes ti mony and dis bel iev e oth er

tes ti mony . Id . at707. A person commi ts ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t i f he in tenti onal ly or kn ow ing ly

ca uses the penetrati on of t he mouth of a chi ld by the sex ual org an of t he act or . T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 22.021( a) (1 )( B) (i i)

. A c hil d’s tes ti mony alone is su ff ic ien t t o s uppor t a conv ic ti on for ag g ra v ated sex u a l a ss a ult

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 38 .07 (Vernon 200 5); Tear v. Sta te , 74 S. W .3d 555 , 560 (Tex. App. –Dallas 20 02, pet. ref ’d). On ap pea l, Edward po ints to th ree insta nces in which he cont end s the evidence is factu ally insuf f icient. First, Edward c o m p la in s thathis conviction rests solelyon F.R.’s tes ti mony . Y et, F. R. ’s tes ti mony i s suff ici e n t to suppor

t Ed w ard’s co nv ic ti on. See T ear , 74 S. W .3d a t 560

. Seco nd, E dw ard arg ues, w it hout a n y ci ta ti on to l eg al author it y , t hat Det ect iv e W il low

di d notco nducta t horoug h i nv est ig ati on, a nd th e al leg edl y i nadeq uate inv est ig ati on presumabl y unde rmi nes his co nv ic ti on. The ju ry , as the sol e j udg e of Det ect iv e W illow ’s credi bil it y and the w eig ht of hi s t est imony , w as free t o as ses s t he thoroug hness of his i nv est ig ati on. See ge ner all y, Lanco n , 253 S.W .3d a t 705; see a lso Ty ro ne v. St

ate , No. 04- 97- 00073- CR , 1998 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 283, at * 3- 6 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Antonio F e b. 27 , 199 8, pe t. re f’d) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( ov er ru li ng a fact ual suf f iciency challen ge w here the ap pellan t com plaine d ab outthe inad equacy of the po lice inv est ig ati on) . Fi nal ly , Edw ard contends that his v olu ntar y st atement “rais es at l eastthe poss ibl e moti v e for the v ic ti m and her mother , t he reci pie nt of [F .R .’ s] outc ry st atement, to8

fabricat e the allegation against [him] .” Once again, th e jury wa s f ree to weig h Edward’s sta tement as itsa w

fit. See Lanco n , 253 S.W .3d a t 705

. Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, w e c oncl ude that the e v ide nce is not so w eak tha t the jury ’s v erdict see ms clea rly w rong and m anif estly unju st, an d tha t the jury ’s v erdict is not ag ain st the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of the ev ide nce. W ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 41 4- 15. Edw ard’s so le is sue is ov er ru led

. III . C ONCL US I ON The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

_________ _________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 8t h day

of Janua ry , 200 9.