AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed November 25, 2019 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-01159-CR CLINT BRANDON MONTGOMERY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296-80385-2017



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Par tida-Kipness, and Pedersen, III Opinion by Justice Bridges A jury convicted appellant Clint Brandon M ontgomery for indecency with a child by contact and sentenced him to seven years’ confinem ent. In a single issue, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to s upport his conviction. We affirm. Background Appellant and Mother married in 2011. At that time, Mother had a nine-month-old daughter (complainant). Appella nt treated complainant as his own child, and complainant called him “daddy.” During their marriage, a ppellant and Mother had two sons. In October of 2015, appellant and Mother sepa rated. She stayed in the house with the children, and appellant moved into his mother’s home. They agreed for the children to spend every–2– other weekend with appellant at his mother’s house. When complainant stayed with appellant, she and her brothers slept in appellant’s room. In March of 2016, the children spent spring brea k with appellant. Complainant was eight year old. 1 One night, complainant and he r brothers watched a movie in appellant’s mother’s room. Appellant was across the hall in his bedroom watchi ng a basketball game. Complainant fell asleep, but later woke up and moved to appellant’s bed. She fell asleep and woke up later with appellant touching her “private part.” A ppellant did not say anything, but stopped when complainant started crying. She then went b ack to sleep. The next day, appellant begged her not to tell anyone what happened because he would not be able to see her and her brothers anymore. She “pinky promised” not to tell. After that week, complainant told Mother she no longer wanted to go to appellant’s house. She provided no reason, and Mother asked no further questions. On September 27, 2016, complainant decided she could no longer keep th e secret and told Mother that appellant touched her. She did not divulge all the deta ils, but revealed “the important parts.” Mother called appellant to confront him with the allegations, but he did not answer. She then called the Plano police departme nt and reported the incident. CPS contacted Detective Kristina McClain, a nd she set up a forensic interview. On September 30, 2016, Mother took complainant to the Children’s Advocacy Center. Detective McClain observed the interview and described comp lainant as quiet, nervous, and hesitant. Lisa Martinez conducted the interview. Complainant spoke in a soft voice and often avoided eye contact. Complainant provided both surrounding and se nsory details of the in cident. She indicated she had been watching Godzilla in her grandmothe r’s room and fell asleep but later woke up and moved to appellant’s bed. She disclosed that she woke up with he r pants pulled down, and

1 She was eleven years old when she testified at trial.–3– appellant touching her. She described the touchi ng as “soft,” and “It di dn’t feel right.” She described her body position as first laying on her back and then rolling to her side. She said appellant stopped touching her when she cried. She told Martinez that appellant told her the next day not to say anything to anyone. Based on the interview, Detective McClain dete rmined appellant had allegedly perpetrated a criminal offense. Detective McClain inte rviewed appellant on October 5, 2016. Appellant voluntarily participated in the interview. He de nied any sexual contact with complainant and did not know why she made the accusation. The inte rview ended when appellant requested an attorney. The State indicted appellant for indecency with a child by contact pur suant to penal code section 21.11(a)(1). The jury found appellant gu ilty of indecency with a child by contact and sentenced him to seven years’ confinement. Sufficiency of the Evidence Appellant challenges the suffi ciency of the evidence supporting his conviction because “the only thing the State presented was a statement from an eleven year old girl who was testifying about something that occurred tw o years earlier,” and nothing corroborated her statement. He further challenges the investigation into the al legations. The State re sponds the evidence was sufficient to support appe llant’s conviction. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the reviewing court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any ra tional trier of fact could have found the essential elements of th e offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Acosta v. State , 429 S.W.3d 621, 624–25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The jury is the sole judge of credibility and weight to attach to witness testimony. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).–4– Appellant was charged with inde cency with a child by contact. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A

NN . § 22.011(a)(1). The testimony of a child victim alone is suffi cient to support a conviction.
See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN . art. 38.07(b)(1); Lee v. State , 186 S.W.3d 649, 655 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2006, pet. ref’d). A rational jury could have found the essentia l elements of the cr ime beyond a reasonable doubt. Complainant’s testimony suppor ts the charge in the indictme nt, which tracked the statutory language of the penal code. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.021(a)(1). Her testimony alone was sufficient to support appellant’s conviction. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN . art. 38.07(b)(1);
Lee , 186 S.W.3d at 655. Her description of what happe ned did not need to be precise, and she is not expected to express herself at the same level of sophistication as an adult. See Soto v. State , 267 S.W.3d 327, 332 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008, no pet.). “As long as a child communicates to the factfinder th at the touching occurred on a part of the body within the definition of the statute, the evidence is sufficient.” Jones v. State , 428 S.W.3d 163, 169 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.). In addition to complainant’s tria l testimony, the jury watched the forensic interview. They watched complainant’s demeanor change when Ma rtinez began questioning her about the incident. They heard complainant describe the in cident and provide sensory details. See, e.g, Matthews v.
State , No. 03-13-00037-CR, 2014 WL 7466653, at *4 (T ex. App.—Austin Dec. 23, 2014, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (p roviding specific facts a nd sensory details when testifying further supported comp lainant’s allegations). To the extent appellant chal lenges the lack of forensic evidence and complainant’s sixmonth delayed outcry, neither argument has merit. Physical evidence is not required to establish sexual contact occurred. See Bargas v. State , 252 S.W.3d 876, 888 (T ex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). Although co mplainant’s October 6, 2016 phys ical exam was normal, Dr.–5– Kristen Reeder testified ninety-five percent of exams are “completely normal,” and she would not expect to see any trauma to the genital area if a child was touche d. Moreover, a delayed outcry is simply one factor the jury can consider in assessing complainant’s credibility and making its determination. See Canales v. State , No. 05-18-01128-CR, 2019 WL 5128171, at *3 (Tex. App.— Dallas Oct. 7, 2019, no pet.). Complainant testified she did not tell right away because she did not want Mother to get mad. The jury weighed th is evidence and found in favor of the State. To the extent the jury heard any conf licting evidence between complainant’s and appellant’s mother’s testimony re garding the night in question, the jury chose to resolve those conflicts in favor of the State. See Cain v. State , 958 S.W.2d 404, 408–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (en banc) (jury decides weight to be given contradictory testimony). 2 Finally, appellant argues the police failed to properly investigate complainant’s allegations because they did not, among other things, interview complainant or visit his mother’s home where the incident occurred. We do not review the suffici ency of the evidence of the police investigation. Rather, we review the evidence presented at tria l and do not speculate about any evidence the State did not present. See Smith v. State , No. 05-18-00491-CR, 2019 WL 1615353, at *7 (Tex. App.— Dallas Apr. 15, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designa ted for publication). Our duty is to ensure the evidence presented supports a conclusion that appellant committed indecency with a child by contact. The record contains such evidence and “was not a determination so outrageous that no rational trier of fact could agree.” Id . (quoting Wirth v. State , 361 S.W.3d 694, 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)). Accordingly, we overrul e appellant’s sole issue.

2 For example, appellant’s mother testifie d appellant and complainant never slept alone in his bed. She testified the children never watched movies in her room. She also testified complainant began acti ng differently and craving more attention after Mother started da ting in January 2016. Complainant denied being upset or bother ed by Mother’s new relationship.–6– Conclusion The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P 47.2(b) 181159F.U05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE–7– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
CLINT BRANDON MONTGOMERY, Appellant
No. 05-18-01159-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296-80385-2017. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Partida-Kipness and Pedersen, III participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered November 25, 2019