### NUM BER 13-09- 0052 8-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
C A R L OS F . C IS N ER OS A /K /A CA RL OS C ISNE ROS , 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 19 7t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of C amero n 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 Y añ ez a n d G arza Memoran du m Op inio n by C hie f J us tice Vald ez A j ur y co nv ic ted a ppel lan t, Car los F . C is neros a/k/a C ar los C is neros, of tw o c ounts of atte mp ted indece ncy w ith a child (coun ts one and tw o) and one coun t of injury to a child (countthree)

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 15.01 (V er non 200 3) , § 21.11( a) (1 ), ( d)I n 19 94, C i sner os was conv i ct ed i n t he st at e of M i chi gan f or t he off ense ofsexua l assau l t and was 1 sent enced t o f i f t een y ear s’ i m pr i sonm ent

. Ci sner os com pl et ed h i s sent ence and m ov ed t o t he Br ownsv i l l e, T exas a r ea so m et i m e be t ween 20 06 a nd 2 007.

T o pr ot ect t he ch i l dr en’ s pr i v acy , we r ef ert o t hem by t he i r i ni t i al s and t o t hei r r el at i v es by 2 p s e u d o n y m s
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9. 8. 2 (V er non Su pp. 2 009) ( prov idi ng thateng ag ing in sex ual co ntac t w it h a c hil d i s a se conddeg re e felony ), § 22 .04 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009) ( pro vi din g thata pe rs on w ho ac ts w it h
cr imi nal neg li g ence and c auses bodi ly i nju ry to a c hil d c ommits the off ense of i nju ry to a chi ld, a s tate-

jai l felony ). Ci sneros ple aded “ tr ue” to the S tate’ s e nhanc ement al leg ati on. 1 T he c o u rt assessed pun ishm entat ten y ears’ imp risonm entfor coun t one , tw ent y y ears’ impr is onm ent for

co unt tw o, an d tw o y ears’ i mpri sonmentfor c ount three, w it h al l three sent ences r unni ng c oncur re ntl y . By four is sues , w hic h w e c onst ru e as tw o, C is neros cl aims thatthe ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor t hi s c onv ic ti on for the offen s e of a tt em pt ed i nd ec en c y w i th a c hi l d. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND A . Of

fi cer San chez At ap proximate ly

5:06 a.m . on July 5, 2008 , Brow nsvil le pol ic e o f f icer Jose Lu is Sanc hezrespo nded to a dis tur bance at Ci sneros’ s home. O ff ic er Sanc heztes ti fied th at
w hen he arriv ed, he m et w ith Rose Rod rig uez and tw o of her dau ghters, R.R. and R.L.R. 2 Off ic er Sanc heznoti ced that R. R. and R. L.R . “ w er e c ry ing , s obbi ng ” and “ seemed dis trau ght and mai nly

sc ar ed.” R ose tol d Officer Sanc hezthather

famil y had g iv en Ci sneros a r ide to his home after a pa rty in thei r Ex pedi ti on, w hic h w as eq uip ped w it h three ro w s o f seats

. R. R. and R. L.R . s at i n the thi rd -row seat s cl ose to t he pas seng er ’s si de of the v ehi cl e, an d C is neros sat at an ang le in the s econd -row se at on the pass eng er ’s si de. R o s e t o l d O f

f i c e r S a n c h e z t h a t w h e n t h e fa m i l y a r r i v e d a t t h e i r h o m e a f t e r d ro p p i n g o ff3

Ci sneros, R .R . and R.L.R . told her that Cis neros had plac ed his le ft ar m ov er the seatand ina ppropr iat ely

touc hed t hem. After hear ing this, Ro se a n d her famil y retur ned t o Cisneros’s hom e to “con f ront him and also f ile a police repo rt.” On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , O ff ic er Sanc hezst ated that Ros e tol d hi m thatC is neros had “put his ha nd u nde r their [R.R. and R

. L.R.’s] dress [sic] an d tou ched them both on the ir leg s a nd but toc ks ” and “tr ied to put his hand in thei r v ag ina l ar ea [s ic ].” O ff ic er Sanc hez als o s tated thathe w as unaw ar e tha t R .R . al leg ed th at C is neros sc ra tch ed her hand. B. Juan R od rig uez R. R. and R. L.R .’ s father , J uan R odr ig uez , t est ified that he, h is w ife, an d the ir four chi ldren, Lin da, R. R. , R. L.R ., and Juan Jr ., atten ded a q uin ceañe ra on J uly 4, 2008. Ju an testif ied th at after the q uince añe ra end ed a t aroun d mid night, Cisneros ap proa ched him and as ked if he c oul d hav e a r ide to an after-p arty thatJu an and his f amil y pl anned t o atten d. Juan tol d C is neros that there w as no room i n hi s v ehi cl e, an d C is neros found
ano the r r ide to the af

ter-party. Juan stat ed th at as th e fam ily prepa red to lea v e the afterparty at a roun d 3:3 0 or 3 :45 a .m ., Cisneros app roach ed and a sked if they w ould g iv e him
a ri de home. Ini ti all y , Juan re fused, but after dis cov er ing that Ci sneros’ s home “w as on th e
w ay ,” he a cq uie sc ed. Juan t e s t i fi e d t h a t h e s a t i n t h e fro n t p a s s e n g e r s e a t a n d R o s e d ro v e w h en th e family l eft the a fter- par

ty

. Juan’ s fifteen-y ear-o ld daug hter , Lin da, sat on the dr iv er ’s si de in the secon d row ; his three -y ear-old son, Juan Jr., sat i n a child’s car seat in th e mid dle of the s econd row ; and Cis neros sat on the passeng er ’s side of the s econd row
. A box of decorati ons sat o n the dr iv er ’s si de of the thi rd row , and R .R . and R .L.R . s at i n the
re maini ng room on t he th ird row se at, tow ards the pass eng er ’s side of the v ehi cl e. Juan4

sta ted t hat he as ked his w ife to sto p at a c onv eni ence sto re so on after the family

l eft the after- par ty so thathe c oul d trade s eats w it h Linda. At the c onv eni ence sto re , Li nda mov ed to t he frontpas seng er

se at, and J uan mov ed to the passe n ger ’s side of the s econd row seat . Th e fam ily

then dro ve t we n t y t o thirty minu tes be fore drop ping Cisneros of f at his house

. Juan sta ted t hat o nce the famil y ar ri v ed atthei r home, hi s w ife and chi ldren w ent ins ide the house , butthattw o or thre e minutes later , his w ife “ came o uts ide cr y ing [,] tel li ng [si c] me w hat t his man had done to my daug hters.” J uan be ca m e a n gry an d he, R ose, R.R. , and R.L.R. w entback to Cisne ros’s hom e. On th e w ay to Cisneros’s ho me , Rose cal led the pol ic e. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , J uan t est ified thathe d ra nk alc ohol at the q uin ceañe ra and the a fter- par

ty

. Juan als o admi tted that he did not mention thata box w as in the thi rd - ro w se a t with R.R

. a n d R.L .R . whe n he gave a st a te m e n t t o po lic e . Ju a n st a te d th a t, al th o u gh he s at on the se co n d -ro w seatw it h C is neros dur ing the ri de from t he after-p arty to Ci sn e ro s ’ s h o me , h e b a r e l y s p o k e t o C i s n e ro s b e c a u s e , “ I w a s o n t h e c e l l p h o n e, an d becau se of the l oud mus ic .” J uan al so sta ted t hat h e di d not see C is neros touc h R .R . or R. L.R . and that , al thoug h he heard R .R . and R .L.R . t alk ing on the w ay to Ci sneros’ s h ome, he w as unabl e to understa nd w hat t hey w er e s ay ing

. C. Ro se R od rig uez Ros e tes ti fied th at Ci sneros approache d Juan and ask ed for a ri de w hen she and her famil y beg an to l eav e the after-p arty at approx imat ely

4:00 a.m. R ose sta ted t hat J uan origi nally said no , but the n chan ged his min d and told Cisneros th at th ey w ould g iv e him
a r ide home. R ose sta ted t hat C is neros ro de i n the se cond- ro w se at di re ctl y

i n frontof her5

ele v en- y ear-o ld daug hter , R .R

. Acc ordin g to Ros e, he r eig ht- y ear-o ld daug hte r, R .L.R ., satbetw een R .R . and a bo x of decorati ons locat e d o n the dr iv er ’s si de of the thi rd -row seat

. J ua n or i g i na l l y s at i n th e fron t- pa s s en g er s ea t, bu t th en s w i tc he d s ea ts w ith his daug hter , Li nda, and s at on the dr iv er ’s si de of t h e s econd -row

se at. After

l eav ing the
conv eni ence sto re , R ose encou ntered a traff ic acc ide nt and w as forced to t ake an al ter nate
ro ute. R o se t e stified that dur ing the ri de to C is neros’ s h ouse, sh e heard J uan t alk to Ci sneros unti l Juan re cei v ed a phone c all

. At o ne poi nt i n the t rip , Ro se sa w C is neros si t t i n g w i t h “ h i s b a c k

. . . l e a n i n g o n t h e w i n d o w o n t h e d o o r , ” a n d h i s “ a r m o n t he s eat.” She also hea rd him te ll R .R. and R.L.R. “thathe w as going to help the m. ” The family

dropped off Ci sneros at hi s h ome and drov e approx imat ely fiv e mi nutes to thei r home. Onc e at home, R ose took her three- y ear-o ld son out o f the Ex pedi ti on and carried him tow ards the hou se. Before getting inside, she hea rd one of her dau ghters
cry ing , a n d L i n d a y e l l e d fo r h e r t o c o me t a l kt o R

. R

. a n d R

. L

. R

. A s R o s e a p p ro a c hed, Lin da to ld her that Ci sneros had t ouche d R .R . and R .L.R

. Ros e tes ti fied th at R .R . t old her tha t Cisneros “ w as using force. She said that she w as on ly try ing to fight him back like take his hands aw ay

from her .” R ose lat er

tes ti fied: R. R. sa id that

. . . [C is neros] put his hand under her dress [;] sh e w as pushi ng him aw ay. She told m e tha t he scra t c h e d h er and thatshe w ould tell him l i k e— s he w as ma k i ng a fac e to l ea v e he r a l on e, t o g et

a w ay
. S he t ol d me that she had to kneel dow n in order for h er , y ou k now , t o be ki nd of—to g et aw ay from hi m, to put her leg s aw ay from w here he w as. Then s he g ot he r s i s te r ’ s l eg s a nd s he t r i ed t o k ee p th em w i th h er s o he w ou l dn ’ t to uc h th em
. Add itiona lly , Rose stat ed th at R.R. and R.L .R. told her tha t Cisneros told them tw ice, “I’m tr y ing to hel p y ou.” Ph otog ra phs of scratc hes on R .R .’ s h and t aken by R ose shor

tl y after she filed a pol ic e re por t w er e admit ted int o ev ide nce. R ose tes ti fied th at R .R . s ust ain ed6

the scratches b y

“fo rcing [Cisneros] aw ay.” Ros e tes ti fied th at after her daug hters t old her

aboutC is neros’ s a cti o n s, s h e and Juan took

thei r daug hters and drov e back to C is neros’ s h ouse. O n the w ay , R ose cal led 911 and asked to “f ile a repo rt.” Rose drove aroun d Cisneros’s ne ighborho od u ntil police
ar ri v ed athi s h ouse and t hen par ked in front of his hous e and tal ked to t he pol ic e. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , R ose sta ted t hat w hen s he as ked her d a u ghters w hy

they had not said some thing w hen Cisneros allegedly t o u c h e d the m, one of her dau ghters
re spond ed, “ I coul dn’ t tal k. I w as sc ar ed. I w as sc ared of dad. I w as sc ar ed of y ou. I w as scared of

w hatwas going t o hap pen ,” a nd “I was so sca red I just cou ldn’t ta lk.” Rose also admit ted t hat s he di d nottak e ei ther R .R . or R .L.Rto the h ospi tal or to a doc tor

after the all eg ed oc cur re nce. D. Li nd a R od rig uez Lin da te sti fied th at s he i s s ixteen y ears o ld and the si ste r of R.R . and R .L.R

. Lin da
s t a t e d t h a tsh e sa tin t h e m id d le s e a to f t h e E xp e d it io n wh e n h e r fa m il y le f tt h e a f t e r- p a rt y, b u tm o ve d t o t h e f ro n t s e a t a t t h e d ir e c t io n o f h e r fa t h e r s h o rt ly a f

t e r l e a vin g t h e a f

t e r- p a rt y. Lind a stat ed th at du ring the ride t o Cisneros’s hou se, Cisneros sat “slante d” a nd “w asn’t facing co mplet ely

to the front” and that she heard C is neros tel l her si ste rs thathe w as “t ry ing to hel p them.” W hen the famil y ar ri v ed athome after

droppi ng off

C is neros, Li nda low er ed the second ro w seat so that her si ste rs could g et out of the Ex pedi ti on’ s t hird- ro w seat

. As she low er ed th e s eat, she noti ced that both of her si ste rs w er e cry ing and ask ed them w hat h ad happ ened. R .R . t old her that Ci sneros “h ad touc hed them.” Li nda c all ed to he r mother

to come ov er , and the si ste rs told Linda and thei r mother thatC is neros had to u c h e d a b o v e t h e k n e e o n t h e ” o u t s i d e p a rt ” o f R

. R

. ’ s r i g h t l e g a n d h a d a l s o tou ched7

R. L.R .’ s k nees. R. R. also tol d Linda that “s he tri ed pushi ng him aw ay , but he w oul d k ind of like fo rce her han d to be able to tou ch her.” Linda testif ied th at she saw scratch ma rks on R.R.’s han ds an d att ribute d the scratches to Cisneros. On cross-examina tion, Linda state d tha t she did notreme mb er telling police of f icers tha t Cisneros pu t his han d ne ar R.R.’s o r R. L.R.’s v aginal area o r that he touch ed th eir but tocks. E. R.L.R. R. L.R . s tated that w hen she w as eig ht y ears old , she atten ded a q uin ceañe ra and an after-p arty

w it h her famil y . W hen t he famil y l eft the after- par

ty , C is neros ask ed J uan for a ri de home. R .L.R . t est ified thatsh e and R .R

. sa t in the thi rd row se at an d tha t Ci sneros sati n the se cond ro w se at i n frontof R. R. R. L.R

. sta ted that dur ing the ri de to Cisneros’s hom e, “ in a dark place,” Cisneros turned around “just like a little bit,” “p u t h is hand ba ck ,” and touc hed R .R .’ s “ upper l eg .” R .L.R . t est ified thatR .R . t ri ed to “ pul l aw ay ,” and t hen C is neros “s tar ted t ouchi ng me on my knee.

. . . M y l eg s w er e al re ady

on t op of [R.R.], m y

sister, and I couldn ’t do an ything mo re.” R.L.R. recalled th at w hen the fam ily
ar ri v ed home, R .R . t old Li nda and R ose w hat h appened. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , R .L.R . ex pla ine d tha t C is neros had to u ch ed bot h of her knee s “li ke ma y be for a minu te,” b u t d id n o t touch her legs or grab h er. R.L.R. also
ex pla ine d t h a t h e r father w as tal ki ng on h is ce ll phone w hen C is neros touc hed her and R.R., and thatCisneros w hispe red tha t “he wa s t ryi n g to he lp us” w hile he touch ed th eir knee s and legs. F. R.R.8

R. R. tes ti fied th at she at tended a q uin ceañe ra w it h her famil y on J uly 4, 2008. After the q uin ceañe ra ended, the family w ent t o an after- par

ty w here the famil y

st ay ed for an hour or tw o. R. R. h eard C is neros ask her dad for a ri de and then Ci sneros g ot i nto t he Ex pedi ti on and sat in the middl e seat on the pass eng er si de in front of R.R

. R. R. st ated that th e f a m ily then drov e to a c onv eni ence sto re , w here her dad sw it ched pla ces w it h Lin da. R. R. tes ti fied th at after l eav ing the conv eni ence st or e, “th er e w as an acci dent, a c ar acc ide nt. I thi nk there w as [si c] cops and they tol d us to tur n. So w hen w e tur ned w e w ent to a dar k s treet, and t hat’ s w hen e veryth in g star ted t o happe n.” R .R . t hen s tated that Ci sneros “w as li ke lea nin g on the door” and “reache d dow n and touc hed [ R. L.R .]’ s k nees and t o u c h e d m y

legs.” R.L.R. mo v ed h er legs on to p of R.R. and R.R. “moved R.L. R.’s leg s l ik e to that si de [si c] so he w oul dn’ t be abl e to touc h her more and he g ot t o tou ch me.” R. R. tes ti fied th at s he w as w ear ing a bl ack dress and that Ci sneros touc hed her leg s u nder her dress an d said th at he w as “try ing to h elp” her. R.R. state d tha t w hen Cisne ros said thi s, she “d idn ’tkn ow

w hat h e w as tal ki ng about ,” and “a sk ed hi m w hat h e w as tal ki ng about” and “w hy

w as he tr

y ing to hel p” her

bec ause she “d idn ’t e v en k now hi m.” W hen R .R

. tr i ed to pu s h C i s ne ros , he c on ti nu ed rea c hi ng for h er l eg s “ us i ng forc e” a nd , ats om e poi nt, sc ra tch ed R.R .’ s hand. R. R. stated that Ci sneros’ s a cti ons w er e notac ci dental and tha t “[h]e kn ew he was doing it.” On cross-examina tion, R.R. testif ied tha t she was unsure how l ong C is neros attempt ed to touc h her but that “i t feltl ik e i t w as long .” R.R . al so sta ted tha t on th e ride ho me , her da d “w as drun k” and she w as not sure w het her he hea rd her ask Cisneros w hy he sa id he was try ing to help he r. After pr esent ing the abov e ev ide nce, the Stat e re ste d, and no w it ness es w er e c all ed by the defense. After

del ibe ra ti ng , the j ur

y co nv ic ted C is neros on tw o c ounts of attempt ed9

in d e ce n cy wit h a c hil d for his co nducttow ards R. R. and R. L.R

. See i d. § § 1 5

. 01, 21.11( a) (1 ), ( d)

. Ci sneros w as als o conv ic ted of inj ur y to a c hil d for the i nju ry he c aused to R.R . byscratc hin g her han d. See i d. § 22. 04. The cour

t as ses sed puni shmentat ten ye a rs ’ i m p ri s o n m e n tfo r c o u n to n e , twe n t y ye a rs ’ i m p ri s o n m e n tfo r c o u n ttwo , a n d two y ears’ imp risonm entfor coun t three , w ith all three sente nces run ning concu rrently. Th is appeal foll ow ed. II. L E GA L A ND F A CTUA L S UF FI CI E NCY A . St and ard o f Rev iew In rev iew ing the leg al suffici ency of ev ide nce, an appel lat e c our t mus t rev iew

al l the evidence in th e lig ht m ost favorable to th e v e rd ict, and ask w het her “‘ any rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the ess enti al ele ments of the c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt ’— not wh e t h er ‘ it

b el i ev es t ha t th e ev i de nc e att he t r i al e s ta bl i s he d g ui l t be y on d a r ea s onable dou bt.’” L a s te r v. State , 2 7 5 S. W .3 d 51 2 , 5 1 7 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g Jacks on v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 , 318 -19 (197 9)) (emp hasis i n origi nal). T he trier of fact is the so le jud g e of t he facts, the credi bil ity of t he w it ness es, and the w eig ht g iv en to tes ti mony
. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 38.04 (V er non 197 9) ; Jacks on , 4 4 3 U .S. at 3 18- 19; Beck hamv. Sta te , 29 S. W .3d 148 , 151 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 0, pe t. ref ’d). W e do not reev alu ate the w eig ht and credi bil ity of the ev ide nce, and w e do not s ubst it ute
our ow n judg ment for

the tr ier of f act

. Ki ng v . St ate , 29 S. W .3d 5 56, 5 62 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a n c ); Beck ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151

. W e resol v e any i ncons is tenc es in the
ev ide nce in fav or

of the j udg ment. Cur

ry v. Sta te , 30 S.W .3d 3 94, 406 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 200 0).10

W hen condu c t i n g a fa c t u a l s u ffi c i e n c y re v i e w , a n a p p e l l a t e c o u rtv i e w s a l l o f t he
ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht. Lanco n v . St ate , 253 S.W .3d 699 , 705 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08). W e w il l setas ide the v erdic t onl y (1) if the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the conv ic ti on i s t oo w eak to s uppor

t t he v erdic t, or

( 2) w hen the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the v erdic t i s o utw eig hed by the greatw eight and prepo nde rance of the cont rary evidence so as to rend er the verdict clearly
w ro ng and m a nifest ly

unj ust

. Laster

, 2 7 5 S. W .3 d at51 8 (cit in g W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414-1 5 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) ); Gr otti v. Sta te , 2 7 3 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 8 3 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2008)

. Unl ess the re cord clear ly rev eal s that a diff er ent resul t i s a ppropr iat e,
w e mustdefer to t he fact- finder ’s dete rmi nat io n c o n cerni ng w hat w eig ht t o be g iv en to cont ra dic tor

y tes ti mony
. Lanco n , 253 S.W .3d a t 705

. The Stat e i s n ot req uired to presentdi re ct ev ide nce to es tabl is h g uil t. See Gue vara
v. State , 152 S.W .3d 4 5, 49 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2004) . “ Ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce is as p ro b a ti ve as direct

ev ide nce in est abl is hin g the g uil t of the act or , and ci rc umstan ti al evidenc e a lo n e ca n be suf f icient to estab lish g uilt.” Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S.W .3d 9 , 13 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) ; see Gu evara , 152 S.W .3d a t 49. The l aw does not re q uire tha t each fact “ poi nt di re ctl y and ind ependent ly

to the g uil t of the app e lla n t, as l ong as the cumul ati v e effectof all the inc ri minat ing facts i s s uff ic ien t t o s u p p o rt the co nv ic ti on.” Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 13; see Gu evara , 152 S .W .3d a t 49. Bo th l eg al and factu al suf f iciency are m easu red by the elem ent s of the of fense a s d e f in e d by a hy pot het ically
cor re ct jur

y ch arg e. Cur

ry v. Sta te , 30 S.W .3d 3 9 4 , 4 0 4 ( T e x . C ri m. App. 2000) ; Adi v. State , 94 S.W .3d 1 24, 1 31 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet. ref’d)

. A perso n com mits ind ecen cy w ith a child if

he en gages i n sexual conta ct w ith a child y oung er than se v enteen yea rs old

. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 21.11( a) (1 ). A person11

commi ts an at tempted ind ecency w it h a chi ld if, w it h spec ific int ent t o c ommit the o ff ense, the p erson “d oes an ac t amount ing to more than mere pr eparati on that tends but fai ls to ef fect th e com mission of the of fense inten ded .” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 15.01( a)

. B. A nal ysis On ap pea l, Cisneros cont e n d s t hat“the alleged act s by[a]p pellan t, if at all, w ere
m e re p re p a ra t o ry c o n d u c twh ic h d id n o tc ro s s t h e l in e t o c ri m in a l c o n d u c t

. ” A d d it io n a ll y, Ci sneros cont ends that the ev ide nce is ins uff ic ien t to suppo rt his co nv ic ti on bec ause the alleged events occu rred in the Rod rig uez’s Ex ped ition, “in close pro x imity to the en tire fami ly o f the al leg ed c hil d v ic ti ms,” and “[ n]o o ne s aw [C is neros] touc h [R .R .] and/or [R .L.R .] or

w it ness hi m eng ag e in anyother condu ct or acts that ev en c aused them to be
sus pic iou s.” T exas co urts have recogniz ed tha t the re is an “imaginary line” t hatsepa rates m ere pr eparator

y condu ct, w hic h is usual ly noncr imi nal , from an act w hic h tends to eff e ct the commi ss ion of an offense, w hic h i s a lw ay s crim in a l co n duct

. Fl our noy v. State , 668 S.W .2d 380, 383 (Tex

. Cr im. Ap p . 1984); Mc Cr avy v. Sta te , 6 4 2 S

. W

. 2 d 4 5 0 , 4 6 0 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1980) ; Jones v. Sta te , 229 S.W .3d 489, 497 (Tex

. App.–Tex ar kana 2007, no pet .). “The fact th at an app ellantcoul d h a ve t aken f urthe r actions w ithou t actu ally commi tti ng the off ense does not actso as to re nder hi s o r her

ac ti ons nothi ng more tha n me re prepa ration .” Jones , 2 2 9 S. W .3 d at49 8 (cit in g Hackbar th v . St ate, 617 S.W .2d 9 44, 946 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1981) ). W here the i mag ina ry l ine i s d ra w n i s d eter mined on a cas eb y - c a s e b a s i s b y c o n s i d e r i n g t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c r i me a t t e mp t ed. Id. (cit in g Gibbo ns v. State , 634 S. W .2d 7 00, 7 07 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1982) ; Hen son v. State , 173 S.W .3d 9 2, 10 2- 03 (Tex. App.– T y ler 2005 , pet . ref ’d) (holding that th e de fend ant ’s act of soliciting a child12

to he lp him w it h w or k a ro und hi s h ouse w as not more tha n mere preparati on to c ommit the off ense of indec ency

w it h a c hil d; ho w ev er , t he defendant’ s req uestthat the chi ld all ow the def end antto com mit a se x ual acton him w as mo re than mere prepa ration )). T he reco rd rev eals th at Cisneros was an acquaint ance that t h e Rodriguezfam ily ag re ed to dr iv e home a fter a q uin ceane ra after-p arty

. R. R. test ified thatC is neros sat direct ly i n frontof

her on the dri v e to his home. Both R.R . and her mothe r sta ted t hat t hey
enco unt ered an au tom obile a cciden t w hile driv ing to Cisneros’s hom e and thatthey w ere forced to tak e an alt er nate rou te. R.R . descr ibe d the alter nate rou te as “dar k” and as t he pla ce w here “ ev er

ythi ng st arted t o happe n.” R .R . testi fied that Ci sneros “l ean[ed] on t he door” and “ re ached dow n and touc hed R .L.R .’ s k nees” and R. R. ’s leg s. R.R . al so tes ti fied that Ci sneros used “for ce” as he touc hed her leg s and that he to uched her l eg s u nder

her dr ess , but

di d nottouc h her

“ pr iv ate par

t.” Acc ordin g to R. R. , C is neros’ s a cti ons w er e not accide nta l and “[h] e kne w he w as do ing i t.” Si mil ar ly , R. L.R

. tes ti fied that “i n a dar k p lac e,” C is neros tur ned around “ jus t l ik e a little bit” and “put his han d ba ck” behind his seat an d be gan to tou ch he r and R.R. R.L.R. sta ted t hat C is neros touc hed bo th of her kn ees and R .R .’ s “ upper l eg .” Bo th R .R . and R. L.R . t est ified thatR .L.R . at tempted to k eep C is neros from touc hin g her by pl aci ng her leg s o n top of R. R. ’s l ap. R. R. and R. L.R . al so tes ti fied th at C is neros w his pered th at he
w as “t ry ing to hel p” w hil e he touc hed t hei r knees and leg s. Of f icer Sanch ez state d tha t Rose told him th at Cisneros “put his han d und er their [R .R . and R .L.R .] dr ess [s ic ] and touched them bot h on thei r leg s a nd but toc ks ” and “ tr ied to pu t hi s h and i n the ir v ag ina l ar ea [s ic ].” H ow ev er , attr ial , R ose did n o t a lle ge th at Ci sneros touc hed R. R. and R. L.R .’ s butto ck s, nor did she ex pr ess ly st ate t hat h e att empted13

to touch her

daught ers’ v ag ina l ar eas. R ose tes ti fied th at R .R . t old her thatC is neros “w as usi ng forc e. She s aid thatsh e w as only try ing to fig ht hi m back l ik e tak e hi s h ands aw ay f ro m h e r. ” R o s e a ls o t o ld t h e ju ry: R. R. said that . . . [C is neros] put his hand under her dress , s he w as pushi ng him aw ay [sic]. She told m e tha t he scratch ed h er and t h a t sh e w ould tell him like—she w as ma king a face to leave her alon e, to g et away . She to ld me thatsh e had to kneel dow n in order for her, y ou k now , t o be ki nd of—to g et aw ay from hi m, to put h er

l eg s a w ay

from w here he w as. Then she g ot her si s te r ’ s l eg s a nd s he t r i ed t o k ee p th em w i th h er s o he w ou l dn ’ t tou ch th em
. Ros e and Lin da testi fied that they heard Ci sneros tel l R. R. and R. L.R . t hat h e w as try ing to help th em . Rose also stat ed th at she saw Cisneros sitting w ith “his back

. . . l eani ng on the w ind ow on the doo r, ” and hi s “ ar m on t he s eat.” Li nda des cr ibe d Ci sneros as si tti ng “ sl anted” and in a pos it ion that“ w asn’ t faci ng complet ely to the front.” Add itiona lly , the ju ry

h eard e v iden ce tha t af ter the a lleged tou ching, R.R. and R.L .R. w ere cr y ing , di straug ht, and ups et. It w as w it hin the prov inc e of the fact- finder

to jud g e the credi bil ity

of the w it ness es and dec ide the w eig ht t o be g iv en to the v ar iou s t est imony

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 36.13 (V er non 200 7) ; Swear ing en v . St ate , 101 S.W .3d 8 9, 97 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003)

. Mo re o ver, “ ‘[ a] j ur y may i nfer i ntentfrom any facts w hic h ten d to prov e i ts existence, inclu ding the act s, w ords, an d con ducto f t he accuse d . . . .’” Har t v . St ate , 89 S. W .3 d 6 1 , 64 (T e x. Crim . Ap p . 20 0 2 ) (qu o ti n g Ma nr iqu e v . St ate , 994 S.W .2d 6 40, 6 49 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 9)). Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the v erdic t, w e c oncl ude t hat t he jury could ha v e foun d tha t Cisneros, a vir tua l stranger who, riding in a dark v ehicle in close prox imi ty to tw o c hil dr en, u sed force to reac h under the dres s o f one chi ld to t ouch her l eg14

and to tou ch the knee s of the ot he r c h ild , crossed th e “imaginary line” between m ere pr eparati on and attempt

. See Jones , 229 S.W .3d a t 498 ; Hen son , 173 S.W .3d a t 102 -0 3. Accordin gly , we h old th at th e evidence w as legally suf f icient to supp ort Cisneros’s
conv ic ti on on both count s of attempt ed i ndece ncy w it h a c hil d. See Laster , 275 S.W .3d at 51 7; se e al

so Jones , 229 S.W .3d a t 498 ; Hen son , 173 S. W .3d a t 102 -0 3. In ad dit ion , viewin g th e e vide n ce in a n e u tr a l ligh t, w e ca n n o t s a y tha t t h e ju ry’s verd ictis cl e a rly w ro n g, manifest ly

unjus t, or ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. See W ats on , 204 S .W .3d a t 414

. T hus, we co nclud e tha t the e v iden ce supp orting Cisneros’s
conv ic ti on for attempt ed i ndec e n cy wit h a chi ld is factual ly su ff ic ien t. See La ncon , 253 S.W .3d a t 704 ; se e a lso Jones , 229 S.W .3d a t 498 ; Hen son , 1 7 3 S

. W. 3 d a t1 0 3

. W e overrule Ci snero s’s issues on ap pea l. III . C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________ _________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Del iv er ed and filed the 24th day of Aug ust , 201 0.