Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 3, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00678-CR

NO. 14-12-00679-CR

MARVIN LEE WATTS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1333900 & 1333901

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant Marvin Lee Watts of two counts of aggravated 

sexual assault of a child less than fourteen years of age and sentenced him to prison 

for seven years in each case. The trial court ordered the sentences to run 

consecutively. Appellant brings this appeal claiming the evidence is insufficient 

and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
2

I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In his first issue, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually 

insufficient to support his conviction. Since the Court of Criminal Appeals’ 

decision in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 894–95, 912–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2010) (4–1–4 decision), the legal-sufficiency standard set forth in Jackson v. 

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), is the only standard that we apply in determining 

whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense 

that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. See Griego v. State, 

337 S.W.3d 902, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 894–95, 

912–13. Accordingly, we will review only appellant’s challenge to the legal 

sufficiency of the evidence.

A. The Testimony

The complainant, I.W.,

1

testified the first occurrence of sexual abuse 

occurred in September of 2011, when she was twelve years old. Appellant was her 

mother’s fiancé and lived in the home with I.W. and her younger siblings, two 

sisters and a brother, appellant’s son. I.W. stayed home from school that day 

because she needed a tetanus shot and appellant took her to get the shot. 

Afterward, they were watching a movie in the living room when appellant asked 

her to go to his room to watch a movie. It was the first time that he invited her to 

watch a movie in the bedroom alone; normally her sisters and/or her mother would 

be present. While they were lying in bed, appellant took her hand and made her 

touch his penis. I.W. testified he then made her perform oral sex on him. 

Appellant put his hands on her head and forced her to put his penis inside her

mouth. Appellant made her head go up and down. I.W.’s testimony indicates that 

appellant did not ejaculate in her mouth, but just stopped.

 

1 On appeal, we will use only the complainant’s initials.
3

The following weekend, I.W.’s mother left early in the morning and then her 

two sisters left the house. I.W.’s little brother was in his room when appellant 

came into her room; she was lying on her bed. He pulled his penis out of his pants, 

leaned over her, told her to open her mouth, and put it in her mouth. Appellant 

moved his penis in and out of her mouth. Appellant then took his penis out of her 

mouth and ran to the bathroom. I.W.’s testimony reflects that appellant did not 

ejaculate in her mouth. 

Later that same day, I.W. and her sisters were leaving appellant’s room 

when appellant called her, closed the door to the bedroom, led her into the 

bathroom, and closed the door. Appellant told her to pull down her pants, got 

“some kind of [v]aseline [sic] out of the cabinet and rubbed it on his private parts.” 

Appellant had her bend over and put his penis in her anus.

2

I.W. testified that the next time appellant made her perform oral sex and had 

anal intercourse with her. On the following occasion, appellant put his penis in her 

vagina. Appellant called her into his room and after having anal intercourse with 

her, appellant told her to lay down on the bed. He leaned over her and put his 

penis in her vagina. Appellant moved up and down, and something “watery and 

white” came out of his penis and was on her legs. I.W. testified that she had never 

seen it before but had learned at school that it was sperm. Appellant went to the 

bathroom, grabbed a towel, and closed the door. 

The last time, appellant made her perform oral sex again. He made her head 

go back and forth until she tasted something and he stopped, grabbed a towel, and 

started wiping his penis. I.W. went to her room and spit in her trash can. She went 

to get some Kool-Aid and as she was walking back to her room, he took her into 

the bathroom. Appellant sat on the toilet and pulled out his penis. He asked her to 

 

2

I.W. used the term “butt” and stated that she knew it was anal sex. 
4

sit down on him but then he could not get his penis in her anus. Appellant had her 

turn around and wrapped her legs around him. Appellant told her to guide it in, but 

she did not—she only appeared to try—and appellant’s penis contacted her vagina. 

Appellant left and took a shower. 

I.W. confided to some friends at school that she was being sexually abused. 

They encouraged her to tell someone. I.W. told her sister and then her mother. 

On the following morning, Agent Chadwick3 met I.W. and her family at the 

church where he was working an extra security job. I.W.’s mother, Celicia 

Simons, appeared distraught and asked Agent Chadwick if he was a police officer.

He said yes and she told him that her daughter had been sexually assaulted. 

Simons told Agent Chadwick that appellant was the suspect. Agent Chadwick led 

the family members inside the church and separated them. 

I.W. provided her name and date of birth to Agent Chadwick; he noticed her 

demeanor changed when she was separated from appellant. I.W. revealed she had 

been sexually assaulted several times. Agent Chadwick noted that appellant was 

calm and collected; appellant told Agent Chadwick that I.W. had fabricated the 

allegations because she was upset over having to do household chores. 

Agent Chadwick referred the case to HPD Sex Crimes and Simons agreed to 

take I.W. to the hospital for an examination. Agent Chadwick was uncomfortable 

leaving I.W. in appellant’s company, but Simons insisted the family would stay 

together. Agent Chadwick did not believe Simons was very sympathetic to I.W.

and noticed how loyal she appeared to appellant. 

I.W. had a medical exam later that day at Texas Children’s Hospital. 

Shannon Frost, a certified sexual assault nurse examiner, testified that I.W. said

 

3 Chadwick is an agent of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.
5

appellant made her touch his penis, put his penis “in her front and back,” made her 

put her mouth on his penis, and touched her breasts with his mouth. I.W. told 

Jones this happened two or three times. Jones found no injuries and testified that 

was not surprising. She explained that penetration of the vagina or the anus could 

occur without causing injury. Further, Jones testified that the lack of injuries did 

not establish none ever existed. In her experience, the majority of patients had no 

injuries and in the case of a delayed outcry, none were expected. Frost observed 

Simons was supportive of appellant, but not of I.W. 

I.W. was interviewed the following day at the Children’s Assessment Center

by Stephanie Jones. Jones testified I.W. was able to tell the difference between the 

truth and a lie. As the outcry witness, Jones testified to what I.W. told her during 

the interview. During the interview, I.W. told Jones that her mother’s fiancé, 

appellant, had sexually abused her in September and October. Jones’s testimony 

as to what I.W. told her was not entirely consistent. Jones conceded that she was 

confused and her testimony about what I.W. told her happened during the first 

encounter, and what I.W. had actually told her, were different. The video 

recording of I.W.’s interview with Jones was admitted into evidence and during 

appellant’s testimony it was published to the jury. The video reflects that during 

the interview I.W. told Jones that appellant made her touch his penis, forced his 

penis into her mouth, and forced his penis inside her vagina.4

At trial, I.W. testified she had known appellant for about two years and her 

relationship with appellant was not good. She said that she “never liked him, 

because of his age and [her] mom going out with him.”5 According to I.W. her 

 

4 Because the jury could find all the essential elements of both offenses beyond a 

reasonable doubt from I.W.’s testimony at trial, it is unnecessary to detail either Jones’s 

testimony or the contents of her interview with I.W.

5 Appellant testified at trial that he was nineteen and Simons was 32.
6

mother was responsible for disciplining her, not appellant. I.W. testified that any 

“big” fights with appellant started after the abuse occurred and they occurred 

because she was disrespectful toward him. I.W. testified that appellant has a tattoo 

on his left wrist that is her name. 

Dr. Thompson of the Children’s Assessment Center testified that while it is

common for children to outcry immediately when they are sexually abused, in 

more cases than not there is a delay of disclosure, sometimes even just days or 

weeks. According to Dr. Thompson, it is uncommon for a child to tell everything 

that happened the first time they outcry. He stated that as time goes by, and 

sometimes as part of treatment, the child is more comfortable and shares more 

about everything that has happened. Dr. Thompson identified this concept at 

“partial disclosure” and testified it is “not so much inconsistencies as them being 

able to say more or less at a given time about what happened to them or even being 

able to recall more or less at a given time . . . .” Dr. Thompson also testified that 

getting a tattoo of the child’s name could be grooming. 

Appellant testified that he took I.W. for her tetanus shot but denied touching 

I.W. in any way. He watched television and I.W. went to her room. Appellant 

testified that the night I.W. alleged he had touched her, she was being disrespectful 

toward him. Simons, I.W.’s mother, was talking to her and one of her sisters about 

punishment when I.W. said appellant had been touching her. Appellant stated he 

never heard any specific allegations as to time, place, or what happened. He 

denied it and wanted to go to the hospital; they decided to go the next day. In the 

morning, they went to the church. Simons immediately started talking to Agent 

Chadwick. Agent Chadwick talked to him and he denied anything had happened. 

Appellant testified that on October 2, they went to Golden Corral after 

church. They returned home around 1:00 p.m. On October 8, the children went to 
7

a banquet with their grandmother. Afterwards, they went to a birthday party and 

came home about 10:00 p.m. On October 9, the children went with Simons’s 

stepmother until they picked Simons up from her community service; they came 

home about 6:00 p.m. Appellant testified that on the weekends of October 1st and 

2nd, and October 8th and 9th, while Simons was at community service, he was 

taking care of the children. Appellant denied that any of the incidents described by 

I.W. happened. 

Appellant showed the jury the tattoo of I.W.’s name. He testified that he had 

the names of all his children tattooed on his body and showed the jury two other 

tattoos bearing the names of his other children. According to appellant, he already 

had a tattoo that included I.W.’s last name and he put her first name in front of it 

because her mother asked; it was done about “a year ago.”

On cross-examination, appellant said Agent Chadwick “was lying” when he 

testified that appellant did not press him for details about I.W.’s allegations. 

Appellant admitted that he told Agent Chadwick he could explain why I.W. was 

making these allegations, but he told Jones that he could not. 

B. Analysis

Appellant claims conflicts in I.W.’s testimony and her delayed outcry render 

the evidence insufficient to support his conviction. When evaluating the legal 

sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the 

essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,

443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Drichas v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005). The standard is the same for both direct and circumstantial evidence cases. 

King v. State, 895 S.W.2d 701, 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). We do not resolve 

any conflict of fact, weigh any evidence, or evaluate the credibility of any 
8

witnesses, as this is the function of the trier of fact. See Adelman v. State, 828 

S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). In conducting our review, we resolve 

any inconsistencies in the evidence in favor of the verdict. Crawford v. State, 889 

S.W.2d 582, 584 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no pet.).

It is the role of the jury to evaluate a witness’s credibility and resolve any 

conflicts in the evidence presented. See Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 647 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1996). The evidence is not insufficient because a complainant 

confuses the types of sex acts and when they occurred—courts give wide latitude 

to testimony given by child victims of sexual abuse. See Ketchum v. State, 199 

S.W.3d 581, 590 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2006, pet. ref’d) (the 

victim’s description of what happened to her need not be precise, and she is not 

expected to express herself at the same level of sophistication as an adult).

The jury heard I.W.’s testimony and was able to view the interview of I.W. 

by Jones. Any conflicts between what Jones said I.W. told her, what I.W. actually 

told her, and what I.W. testified to at trial were for the jury to resolve. Likewise, 

I.W.’s inability to give exact dates and any inaccuracies in her testimony were 

before the jury for its consideration, as was I.W.’s delay of several weeks before 

making an outcry and her failure to disclose the anal sex in her interview with 

Jones. I.W.’s testimony established that appellant penetrated her mouth with his 

sexual organ and caused her sexual organ to contact his sexual organ. See Tex. 

Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.07(a) (West 2013) (the testimony of a child victim 

alone is sufficient to support a conviction for sexual assault); Villalon v. State, 791 

S.W.2d 130, 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (child victim’s unsophisticated 

terminology alone established element of penetration beyond a reasonable doubt); 

Jensen v. State, 66 S.W.3d 528, 534 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. 

ref’d) (testimony of child victim alone is sufficient to support conviction for
9

aggravated sexual assault). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

verdict, the jury could have found the elements of both offenses beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 895. Appellant’s first issue is overruled.

II. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE

Appellant’s second issue asserts a claim for ineffective assistance. 

Appellant complains that counsel failed to object to the evidence of tattoos on his 

body. 

We examine claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard 

set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Under Strickland, 

appellant must prove that his trial counsel’s representation was deficient, and that 

the deficient performance was so serious that it deprived him of a fair trial. Id. at 

687. Counsel’s representation is deficient if it falls below an objective standard of 

reasonableness. Id. at 688. This deficiency will only deprive appellant of a fair 

trial when counsel’s performance prejudices appellant’s defense. Id. at 691–92. 

To demonstrate prejudice, appellant must show a reasonable probability that, but 

for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been 

different. Id. at 694. Failure to make the required showing of either deficient 

performance or sufficient prejudice defeats the claim of ineffectiveness. Id. at 697. 

This test is applied to claims arising under both the United States and Texas 

Constitutions. See Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 56–57 (Tex. Crim. App.

1986).

Our review of defense counsel’s performance is highly deferential, 

beginning with the strong presumption that the attorney’s actions were reasonably 

professional and were motivated by sound trial strategy. See Jackson v. State, 877 

S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). When the record is silent as to trial 

counsel’s strategy, we will not conclude that appellant received ineffective 
10

assistance unless the challenged conduct was “so outrageous that no competent 

attorney would have engaged in it.” See Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390, 392 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rarely will the trial record contain sufficient information 

to permit a reviewing court to fairly evaluate the merits of such a serious 

allegation. See Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828, 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). In the 

majority of cases, the appellant is unable to meet the first prong of the Strickland 

test because the record on direct appeal is underdeveloped and does not adequately 

reflect the alleged failings of trial counsel. See Mata v. State, 226 S.W.3d 425, 430 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

In this case appellant did not file a motion for new trial alleging ineffective 

assistance of counsel or develop a record of counsel’s reasons for his actions. 

Therefore, in addressing this issue, the record is silent as to counsel’s strategy.

The record reflects that at the beginning of trial the trial court granted 

appellant’s motion excluding photographs depicting appellant’s tattoos. 

Subsequently, I.W. testified that appellant has a tattoo on his left wrist that is her 

name. The State then moved to introduce a photograph of that tattoo. Defense 

counsel questioned I.W. on voir dire and objected to its admission on the grounds 

she lacked personal knowledge of the photograph. The objection was overruled 

and the exhibit was admitted into evidence and published to the jury. The State 

then asked for appellant to show the same tattoo to the jury. It was at that point 

defense counsel stated, “no objection.”

As set forth above, when appellant testified, he showed the jury the tattoo 

again. He testified that he had the names of all his children tattooed on his body 

and showed the jury two other tattoos bearing the names of his other children. 

According to appellant, he already had a tattoo that included I.W.’s last name and 
11

he put her first name in front of it because her mother asked; it was done about “a 

year ago.”

The jury had already heard testimony from I.W. that appellant had her name 

tattooed on his wrist and had seen a photograph of it. Counsel did not object to the 

jury seeing the actual tattoo. Once the jury learned of the tattoo and had the picture 

of it, counsel’s strategy might have been to show the jury that appellant’s tattoo of 

I.W.’s name had no special significance. In light of the context in which counsel 

failed to object, we cannot say counsel’s action was unreasonable or outrageous. 

Because appellant has not established the first prong of Strickland, we overrule his 

second issue.

III. CONCLUSION

Having overruled both of appellant’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s 

judgment in each case.

/s/ Tracy Christopher

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and McCally.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).