### NUM BER 13-07- 0070 1-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
A NT ONIO F. VERA , 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 11 7t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces 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 G arza a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez A j ur y found Ant oni o F. Vera, appel lan t, g uil ty on thr ee count s of s ex ual ass aul t of
a c hil d. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 2 2.0 11 (Ve rnon Supp . 200 8). Th e trial court
a s s e s s e d p u n is h m e n ta tt we n t y f ive ye a rs ’ c o n f in e m e n tf o r e a c h c o u n t , t o ru n co n c u rr e n t ly. In two issues, Vera: (1) c hallen ges the legal and factu al suf f iciency supp orting hisVer a, who was si xt y - sev en y ear s ol d at t he t i m e, wal k ed wi t h a cane. 1 2 conv ic ti on; a nd ( 2) co ntends thatthe puni shmentv iol ates the Ei g hth a nd F our teent h Amendments to the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on bec ause iti s d is propor ti onate. See U. S. C ON ST . am end s. II X , X IV

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On t he e v en i ng o f Oc to be r 12, 200 6, J. D ., a f ou rte en - y ea r- ol d bo y re tu r ni ng h om e f rom a n a ft e rn o o n of

f ishing, enco unt ered his fa the r and a group of his fa the r’s friend s, inc lud ing Vera, dr ink ing i n frontof his hous e. J.D . w ent i nsi de and fell asl eep i n hi s b ed. Around 10 or

11 p.m., J. D. ’s father

w oke J.D . up and as ked him to w alk Vera to his trail er home dow n t h e ro a d

. J

. D

. , d r e s s e d i n b o x e r s h o rt s , w a d e rs , a n d a t - s h i rt , o b l ig ed. 1 Accordin g to J.D.’s testim ony, w hen the two reached Vera’s trailer hom e, Vera o f fered J.D. three shirts and went inside to g et th em . Vera the n aske d J.D. to en ter the trailer. J.D

. tes ti fied that w hen he entered the tr ail er , Ver a w as sta ndi ng a few feet from t he doorway, and he w as compl etel y nak ed and had an er ect ion

. J.D . furt her tes ti fied th at Vera tore off

J. D. ’s cl othes , forced J.D .’ s mouth to contacthis peni s b y pul li ng J. D. ’s head down tow ards it, pu t his mo uth on J.D.’s pen is, and put his pe nis o n J

. D. ’s a n u s . J.D.
re membered feeli ng “ some s tuff” on his back , w ipi ng i t off, ret ri ev ing hi s b ox er sh orts and t-shirt, and running outof the tra il e r. O n c e h e reache d his hom e, J.D. ou tcried to h is mother

. S.J ., J.D .’ s mother , testi fied that on the ev eni ng of October 12, 2006, J.D . t old her that Vera “ tr ied putt ing his thi ng in his mouth.” Af ter sh e heard J .D .’ s o utc ry , S. J. pic ked up an ax , w ent int o Vera’s tr ail er , encou ntered Ver a near the door w ay w ear ing noth ing but
an er ec ti on , an d tr i ed t o “ c ho p off” h i s p en i s . S .J

. r ec al l ed t ha t Ve r a de fen de d him self3

ag ain st her

att ack by hi tti ng her

w it h hi s c ane. Davi d Rodriguez and Da niel Hernan dez , dep uties wi th th e Nuece s Count y Sherif f ’s Dep artment, r espon ded t o a d is patc h c all r eg ardin g a s ex ual ass aul t. D eputy R odr ig uez testif ied tha t S.J. w as v eryu pset a nd angry , and h e not ed tha t J.D. looke d to be in “v ery ser iou s s hock .” D eputy H er nandeztes ti fied th at S .J. w as cr y ing hy ste ri cal ly , and he obser v ed J .D . “ sta rr ing of

f” into the dis tanc e. Dep uty Her nandezfurth er

tes ti fied th at w hen he went to Ve ra’s hom e to investigate the report, Ve ra im me diate ly started repea ting, “I did n’tdo anythi ng .” After J. D. i denti fied Vera as the ass ail ant, Dep uty H er nandezar re ste d Vera, es cor

ted h im t o a p atrol car , and found hi m mobil e and not c omplet ely hel ple ss . After the i nci dent, J.D. w as tak en to a ho spi tal , w her e he re count ed w hat h ad hap pen ed to Ricardo Jimen ez, an in tervi ewer, an d Eliz abe th And elm an, a foren sic nurse
ex aminer

. On c ro ss ex aminat ion byVera’ s couns el, J.D. admi tted not t ell ing Ji menezthat Vera’s peni s t ouche d his anus. U pon furt her cross ex aminat ion , J .D . admi tted not t ell ing Andel man aboutVera pos si bly ej acul ati ng on h is bac k b ecaus e he w as sc ar ed ev en thoug h s uch infor mati on mi g ht ha v e ai ded her forens icex aminat ion

. Andel man tes ti fied that she ex amined J. D. , and sh e s w abbed h is mouth, peni s, and
anu s for DNA ev iden ce. And elm an f urthe r testif ied th at s he o bserved bruises on J.D.’s
ar ms a n d p h o t o g r a p h e d t h e m. R e g a r d i n g e v i d e n c e o f fo r c e d a n a l c o n t a c t , Andel man sta ted t hat s he di d notobs er v e any i nju ry to J.D .’ s a nus, but that anal i nju ry i s i nfreq uent becau se the o rg an c an s tr etc h and heal q uic kl y . Andel man al so tes ti fied th at y oung men, as a g ro up, a re not eag er to tal k about anal in ter course w hen prov idi ng a hi sto ry of ass aul t. Rob in Ol son Cas tro, a forens icsc ien ti st w it h the Depar tment of Publ icSaf ety , t est ed the s w ab s for

D N A ev i de nc e, a nd s he t es ti fi ed t ha t th e pe ni l e s w ab c on ta i ne d a mi x ture4

of DNA from J.D. and Ve ra. Ca stro state d tha t the presen ce of Vera’s DNA on J.D.’s pen is is co nsi ste nt w it h the ac cus ati on th at V er a per formed oral sex

on J .D

. Cas tro al so sta ted that itw oul d be v er

y unl ik ely for V er a’s D NA

to hav e trans ferr ed to J.D. ’s peni s from cau sal cont act , s uch as Vera handi ng a t ool to J.D

. Ma ri a Br ion es, a reg is tered nurs e w ho w or ks at the c ounty heal th de par

tment, and Patr ic k J enni ng s, cl ini cal manag er for t he c ounty

j ail , w er e c all ed by

Vera to tes ti fy as to his heal th an d mobi li ty

. Br ion es tes ti fied th at V er a di d notreq uire assi sta nce to g o to the bathroom. Jenni ng s t est ified thatVera w as pla ced in the j ail ’s i nfir mary and t h at he has li mite d mobi li ty

bec ause of ar

thr it is

. On cross ex aminat ion by the Stat e, J enni ng s t est ified that Vera had a s trong , s teady g ait and that use of a cane is not re pr esent ati v e of upper body st re ng th. Vera d id nottestif

y at trial. The three co unt s of sex ual assault of a child tha t the jury charge in clude d aske d the jury to det ermin e w het her Ve ra inten tiona lly and knowi ngly
caus ed: (1 ) J. D. ’s sex ual org an to penetrat e or contac t hi s mout h; ( 2) Vera’s se x ual org an to pen etrat e or cont act J.D.’s mo uth ; and (3) Vera’s sexual o rg an to cont act J.D.’s anu s. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22. 011( a) (2 )( C) -( E)

. The ju ry found Vera g uil ty

on a ll thr ee c ounts

. Ver a el ect ed to g o before the tr ial court for pun ishm ent . Th e trial court asse ssed p unish me nt at tw ent y -f iv e y ears’ confine ment for each count , t o r un c oncur re ntl y . This appeal foll ow ed. II. S U FFI C I ENC Y OF TH E E V I DE NCE In his f irst issue, Ver a c o n t e n ds tha t the ev iden ce is legally insuf f icient to supp ort his co nv ic ti on bec ause onl y the v ic ti m tes ti fied th at he co mmitt ed t h e a lle ged s ex ual5

ass aul t. Addi ti onal ly , Ve ra arg ues that the e v ide nce is f act ual ly insuffici ent becaus e: (1 ) he vehem ent ly

den ied the a ccusat ion; (2) th ere w as am ple evidence that he w as an inv alid and i ncapa ble of ass aul t; and ( 3) “ one c oul d i nter pr et the ev ide nce . . . [to c oncl ude] that the [ J.D .] approache d [V er a] for se x ual fav ors” , “ [Vera] reje cte d s uch adv ances ”, “ then there had been oral[ -] g eni tal co ntac t i nit iat ed by [J .D .]” , and J.D. ’s “st ate of shock [w as] a mere shame for parents and frie nds to c ov er hi s c onduc t t ow ards [Vera].” A . St and ard s o f Rev iew In c onduc ti ng a l eg al suffici ency rev iew , w e v iew

the re lev ant e v ide nce in the l ig ht most fav or abl e to the v er dic t to dete rmi ne w hether a rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the e ss enti al ele ments of the c ri me b e yond a reason abl e doubt

. Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S. W .3 d 9, 13 (T e x. C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 318- 19 (1 979) ); Esc am il

la v. State , 143 S .W .3d 8 14, 8 17 (Te x . Crim. App

. 200 4). Th e trier of fact is the sol e j udg e of the facts, the credi bil it y o f the 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) ; Beck hamv. Sta te , 29 S. W .3d 1 48, 1 51 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust o n [14 th D is t.] 2000, pet. r ef’d)

. W e do not
re e va lu a t e t h e we ig h ta n d cr e d ib il it y o f t h e e v i d e n c e , a n d we d o n o tsu b s t it u t e o u r o wn jud g ment for the t ri er

of fact. Ki

ng v . St ate , 29 S.W .3d 556 , 562 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 0); Beck ham , 29 S

. W

. 3 d a t1 5 1

. I n s t e a d , w e c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e j u r y r e a c h e d a ra t i o nal deci si on. Beck

ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151

. W h e n co nduct ing a factual suffici ency re v iew , w e v iew all of t he ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht. Ladd v

. St ate , 3 S.W .3d 5 47, 5 57 (T e x. Crim

. Ap p . 199 9)

. W e w il l setthe
v erdic t as ide onl y

i f (1) the ev ide nce is so w eak that the v erdict is cl ear ly w ro ng and6

manifest ly

unj ustor

( 2) the v er dic t i s a g ain st the g re at w eig ht an d prepondera n ce o f the
ev ide nce. Jo h n s o n v. Sta te , 2 3 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 n o t conclu de th at a con v iction is “clearly w rong” or “man ifestly unj ust ” si mply

bec a u se, on t he q uantum o f ev ide nce admit ted, w e w oul d hav e v oted to acq uit had w e been on the jur y . W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 416 (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 newtr ial si mply bec ause w e di sag re e w it h the j ur y ’s r esol uti on of that confli ct. Id

. Before findi ng thatev ide nce is factual ly i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t a v erdic t und er t h e s e c o n d p ro n g o f Jo h nson , we must be abl e to say , w it h s ome obj ect iv e bas is i n the record, th at th e great w eight and prepo nde rance o f t he e v iden ce con tradicts th e jury ’s
v erdic t. Id . In cond ucting a factu al suf f iciency rev iew , w e mu st also discuss th e evidence that, acc ordin g to the appel lan t, most under mines the j ur y ’s v erdic t. See Sim 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 almostcomplet e defere nce to a jur y ’s dec is ion w hen tha t decision is base d upo n an evaluation o f credibility .” Lanco n v

. St ate , 253 S. W .3d 6 99, 7 0 5 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 8 )

. “ Th e juryis in th e b e s 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 pres ent t o 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

. The ju ry maych oose to be li ev e s ome tes ti mony and dis bel iev e oth er

tes ti mony . Id . at707. B. A nal ysis Vera c ontends that t h e e videnc e i s l eg all y i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t hi s c onv ic ti on beca use o nly the v ictim test if ied tha t he com mitt ed the a lleged sexual a ssault. How ever,7

the t est imony

of a chi ld v ic ti m alo ne is suffici ent t o s uppor t a conv ic ti on for sex ual as saul t. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 38.07( a) ( Ver non 200 5) ( “A co nv ic ti on unde r Cha pter 21, S ect ion 22.0 11, o r Sect ion 22.021, Penal C ode, is su ppor tabl e on the u ncor ro bor ated tes ti mony

of the v ic ti m of the sex ual off ense if the v ic ti m in formed any person, othe r than the def end ant , of

the alleged of

fense w ithin one year af ter the date on w hich th e of fense is al leg ed to hav e oc cur re d.” ); Rui z v. Sta te , 891 S.W .2d 302 , 304 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 1 9 9 4 , pe t. re f ’ d ) ( c i t in g Vi ll alo n v . St ate , 791 S.W .2d 130 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 90)). Acc ordin g ly , Ve ra ’s l eg al suffici ency ch all eng e i s o v er ru led

. As to hi s fact ual suff ic ien cy chall eng e, Vera ’s as ser ts that he v ehementl y

deni ed th e acc usat ion w h e n c o nfronted by D eputy H er nandezand that there w as ample tes ti mony that he w as a disabl ed inmate from Bri ones and J enni ng s. The tes ti mony from t hese three ind iv idu als , Ve ra arg ues, es tabl is hes that the jur y ’s ve rd ic t is ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d pr eponderance of the ev ide nce. The ju ry , how ev er , hea rd tes ti mony thatco ntradi cts Vera’ s a rg ument fro m J. D. , S. J., and D eputy

H er nandez

. In ad dit ion to tes ti fyi n g a b out t he i nci dent, J. D. tes ti fied th at he had s een Ve ra mov e rai ls and pip es in his ya rd , t ur n on a g ener ator thathi s o lde r brother could not turn on, and f ix cars. S.J. sta ted thatVera succe ssf ully def end ed h imse lf

against her ax att ack by striking he r w ith his cane . Further, Depu ty Hernan dez testif ied th at Ve ra w as mo bi le a n d n ot com plete ly helple ss on the night of the incide nt. Moreover, Vera’s assertio n tha t Brione s and Je n n ings prov ided amp le testim ony as to his disability is
m isp la ce d . B rio n e s te st if ie d t h a t Ve ra co u ld go t o th e ba th ro o m on hi s o wn, an d Je n n in gs tes ti fied th at V er a had a s trong , steady gai t and that the use of a c ane i s n ot i ndi cat iv e of8

upper body st re ng th. “The jur y i s t he ex cl usi v e judg e of the credi bil it y of w it ness es and of the w eig ht t o be giv en te stimo ny, and it is also the exclusiv e province of the jury to recon cile conf licts in the ev iden ce.” W

esbr ook v. State , 29 S.W .3d 1 03, 1 11 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2 0 0 0)

. In resolvi ng conf licts in the evidence, a jury “may accep t one v ersion of facts a n d reje ct
ano the r or reject a ny of a w itness’ te stimo ny.” Bake r v. State , 9 8 6 S

. W

. 2 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 6 (T e x. App.–Tex ar kana 1998, pet. re f’d)

. In thi s cas e, t he j ur y ac cept ed a v ersi on of the facts that
env is ion ed Vera as ca pabl e of car ry ing out the a ll eg ed offenses. Vera’s final f act ual suff ic ien cy arg ument is that J .D . made sex ual adv ances tow ar ds him, su cc eeded t o s ome extent— w hic h ex pla ins the DN A ev ide nce— and t hen made up the a ll eg ati ons to c oncea l his behav ior

. This arg ument i s a dv anced w it hout any ci tati on to the rec ord, perha ps becaus e it is not supp orted b y any di re ct ev ide nce. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1( i) (“ The br ief must contai n a cl ear and conc is e arg ument for the cont enti ons made,
w it h appropr iat e c it ati ons to au thor it ies and to t he record.” ). In an y event, th ere is direct evi den ce con tradictin g Vera’s argum ent . During redirect
ex aminat ion , t he St ate a sk ed J .D . i f he w as in any w ay i nterest ed i n bei ng phy sica l w it h Vera, to w hich J.D. respo nde d, “ No.” Lat er, during re-cross examina tion o f J.D. by Vera’s
couns el, the follo w ing di sc uss ion took pl ace: Q: J.D., if

y ou had w ant ed to be w ith [Ve ra] y ou wouldn’t com e in to te ll us that today , w oul d y ou? A: No. Q: Y ou’ d be ashamed to t ell us that ?9

A: W hy

w oul d I w ant t o hav e s ex w it h him? W hy

w oul d I w ant to be near him? I’ m bar ely

w anti ng to loo k a t hi m and y ou’ re tel li ng me th at y ou w ant me to—y ou’ re sa y ing I w ant him to be sc re w ing [me]. That’ s n ot ev en r ig ht, man. Q: My

q uest ion is w het her or not y ou would tell us. A: I w ould tell y ou straight up that y eah , I w ant ed to do it, but why w ould I w an t to d o i t w i th h i m? Q : O k a y. A: It’ s a st upi d q uest ion

. Ass uming , outof an abundanc e of c auti on, t hat V er a’s final factual su ff ic ien cy arg ument is adequa tely brief ed, w e con clude thatall of Vera’s factu a l s u f

f iciency challen ges fa il beca use the ev iden ce is not so w eak that the jury ’s v erdict i s clearly w rong or man ifestly unj ust , nor

i s t he v erdic t ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. Vera’s first is sue is ov er ru led

.

III . D I SPRO POR TI ON A TE P UNI S HMENT In his seco nd issue , Vera con ten ds tha t his tw ent y-f iv e-y ear sen ten ce is so dis propor

ti onate to the off enses that it cons ti tutes a cr uel and unusu al puni shment

. See U. S. C ON ST . a me n d s . I I I X , X I V

. To s u p p o rt h i s c o n t e n t i o n , V e r a r e fe rs u s t o the U nit ed Stat es Con sti tuti on, t he M ag na C arta, and t he C ode of Hammurabi

. The Stat e arg ues that Vera w aiv ed hi s s econd i ss ue by not ra is ing i t w it h the tr ial co urt. W e ag re e. T o prese rv e error for a ppe llate rev iew , a party m ust prese nt atthe ea rliest possible oppor tuni ty a t imel y obj ect ion to the t ri al cour t, sta te the s peci fic g ro unds for th e obj ect ion , and obtai n an adv erse ru li ng . T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1( a) ; Di xon v. State , 2 S.W .3d 2 63, 2 6510

(Tex . C ri m. App. 1998)

. Ev en c ertai n c onst it uti onal g uara n te es ar e al so subj ectto forfeiture i f a proper

obj ect ion w as not made at tr ial

. Saldano v . St ate , 70 S.W .3d 8 73, 8 87 (Te x . Crim. App

. 200 2). Failure to make a specif ic objectio n to a d ispropo rtiona te sen ten ce i n t h e t r i a l c o u rt o r a p o s t - t r i a l mo t i o n w a i v e s a n y e r ro r fo r a p p e l l a te r ev iew

. Q u in tan a v. State , 777 S.W .2d 474 , 479 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 198 9, pe t. ref ’d). Vera fail ed to make an obj ect ion on the basi s of a di spropor ti onate sent ence in the trial court or in a post -t ri a l m o t io n, an d he raises this issue for the f irst time on app eal. T h e re fo re , V e ra ’s se c o n d is s u e is n o tp re s e rve d fo r r e vie w. IV. C ONCL US I ON The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment of co nv ic ti on and sent ence is aff ir med.

_________

_________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do NotPubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 21s t day

of Ma y , 200 9.