### N UMBER 13
- 1 2
- 00 667
- C R 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

KENSON JACK JONES Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

of Tarrant County, Texas

.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria By two issues, appellant, Kenson Jack Jones, challenges his conviction and sentence for sexual assault of a child under the age of seventeen, a second

- degree felony. T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.011(a)(2) (West Supp. 2011). We affirm. 1

1 This case is before this Court on transfer from the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001 (West 2005).2 I. B ACKGROUND 2 The State charged appellant with the sexual assault of A.S., his stepdaughter. A.S. testified that she woke up to find appellant on top of her, that he moved her underwear out of the way, and touched her vagina with his sexual organ. A.S. informed a classmate at her school that morning abou t what happened, and the classmate subsequently informed s chool officials

. School officials later called the police. A.S. underwent a sexual assault examination at Cook Children’s Medical Center and police seized several items from A.S.’s home, including the clothes she was wearing during the crime and her bed sheets. Appellant’s DNA was tested after his arrest, and found to be a genetic match to both the sperm in the vaginal swab taken from A.S. and the sperm recovered from the underwear A.S. wore at th e time of the crime. Appellant plead ed not guilty and the case was tried to a jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessed twelve years’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.
II. A NALYSIS Appellant argues that the evidence supporting his convicti on is insufficient and that his sentence was grossly disproportionate to the crime charged.
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
1. Standard of Review In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, our inquiry is “whether, after viewing the evi dence in a light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Garcia v. State , 367 S.W.3d 684, 686

– 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)

2 Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here except as necessary to our decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.1

.3

(citing Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). It is the role of the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in testimony, weigh evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from
that evidence. Hooper v. State , 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing
Jackson , 443 U.S. at 3 18

– 19 (1979)). The trier of fact, in this case the trial court judge, is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight, if any, to be given to their testimony. Garcia , 367 S.W.3d at 686

– 87 ; Brooks v. State , 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.) . “[T]he Jackson v. Virginia standard is the only standard that a reviewing court should apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient.”
Brooks , 323 S.W.3d at 912.

2. Discussion Appellant briefs authorities pertaining t o the standard of review and make s a conclusory statement that: “[t]he State of Texas did not meet its burden of proof, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in that it failed to prove that Appellant committed the offense as is set out in the [sic] indictments .” Appellant has not provided this court with an argument regarding how the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Appellant has not discussed the essential elements of the offense or identified any element for which the evidence is arguably inconsistent. Therefore, w e conclude that this point of error is inadequately briefed , and presents nothing for our review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(i); see also Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878, 896 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (observing that “this Court is under no obligation to make appellant’s arguments” for him). We overrule appellant’s first issue.4

B. Disproportionate Sentence In his second issue, appellant argues that his senten ce of twelve years ’ imprisonment was so disproportionate to the crime , and to other sentences imposed for
similar crimes , that it violate d the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. C ONST

. A MEND

. VIII; T EX

. C ONST

. art. I, § 13. In order to preserve a complaint of this nature for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection to the trial court. Kim v. State , 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d); Arriaga v. State , 335 S.W.3d 331, 3 34 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010 pet. ref’d). Appellant did not object to the sentence at the time it was imposed, and so did not preserve this argument for our review. We accordingly overrule appellant’s second issue.
III. C ONCLUSION We affirm the ju dgment of conviction.

_______________________ NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b)

. Delivered and filed the 25th day of April , 2013

.