### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00613- CR

John Richard Ah rens, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 207 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CR2010 -30 0, H ONO RAB LE JACK H . RO B ISO N, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
A jury convicted John Richard Ahre ns of three counts of indece ncy with a child by contac t ag ainst his step-g randson who was six y ear s old at the time of the abuse. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.11. After the Appellant pleade d true to five enhanc ement para g raphs alleg ing five prior convictions for the offe nse of indece ncy with a child by contac t, the trial court assessed punishment at life imprisonment f

or eac h count and order ed the sentenc es to run consec utively

. I n a sole issue

on appea l, Appellant contends there is insufficient evidenc e to support his convictions. The parties

are familiar with the fac ts, proce dural history , and applicable standards of revie w. Acc ording ly , we will not rec ite them here except as n ec es s ar y t o advise the parties of the Court’s decision and the basic re asons for it. See Tex. R. App. P . 47.4. We will affirm the trial c ourt’s judg ment.

A person commits the offe nse of indece ncy with a child by contac t if he eng ag es in sexual contac t with a child y oung er than sevente en y ear s old who is not the person’ s spouse withthe i ntent to arouse or gra tify the s exual desire of any per s o n . S ee Tex. Penal C ode § 21.11. The indictment in this case alleg ed that the Appellant eng ag ed in sexual contac t with the complainant by touching the complainant’s male sex org an with his hands or fing ers to arouse or g ratify his o wn sexual desire. I n support of the alleg ations, the complainant testified at trial that the Appellant would have him sit on his lap in a rocking chair and then would “would stick his hand inside my pants and my box ers and move his hand around

. . . on my penis.” He further testified that when this occur red the Appellant “had his arm around me, so ever y time I tried to g et up, he would hold me down.” The

co m plainant’s mot her testified that her son had made an outcry of abuse to her that the Ap p el l an t had touche d his ge nitals.

Appellant contends there is insufficient evidenc e to support his conviction beca use: (1) t h er e was no cre dible evidenc e he committed the act; (2) there was no evidenc e he committed the act with the intent to g ratify his sexual desire; and (3) there is no evidenc e he committed multipl e acts of indece ncy wi t h a ch i ld by contac t sufficie nt to support three convictions. Appellant first contends in his brief that there is no evidenc e to suppor t his conviction beca

use neither the mother

or the complainant wer e cre dible witnesses. The jury , howeve r, clea rly considere d these witnesses

cre dible, and they are the sole judge of the witnesses’ cre dibilit y and can choose to believe all of the testimony pres ented. Chambers v. State , 805 S.W .2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.07 (complaina nt’s testimony alone is sufficie nt to support conviction for indec ency

with a child). Wit h reg ard to the element of intent, a defe ndant’s intent to arouse or g ratify may be inferre d from the acc used’s conduct alone. See Connell v. S t a t e , 233 S.W .3d 460, 467 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth 2007, no pet.). Her e, the jury hear d testimony that the Appellant

2touched the complainant’s penis while holding the child down. The jury could have inferr ed from

the complainant’s testimony that the Appellant touched him with the intent to arouse or g ratify his sexual desires. Fur

ther, the State introduced extraneous offe nse evidenc e establishing that t he Appellant had inappropria tely touched the g enitals of four other y oung boy s while serv i ng as a Scoutmaster for a troop of Boy Scouts. See Morgan v. State , 692 S.W .2d 877, 881 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (extraneous acts of miscond u ct re l ev ant to prove appellant’ s specific intent for indece ncy with a child by

contac t). Finally , the Appellant contends there was not sufficie nt evidenc e to support three convictions beca

use the State failed to prove three separ ate offe nses occur ring on the dates alleg ed in the indictment

. He re , the indictment alleg ed that the incidents occur red “on or about” three specific dates occurr ing prior t o t h e p re s en tment of t he indi ctment. “I t is well s ettled t hat t he ‘on

or about’ lang uag e of an i n d i ctment allows the State to prove a date other than the one alleg ed in the indictment as long as the date is anter ior to the prese ntme n t o f the indictment and within the statutory limit ation period.” Sledge v. State , 953 S.W .2d 253, 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). I n this

case , the witness answe red aff irmatively that there wer e at least three differ ent occa sions wh ere the defe ndant touched his penis, and the abuse occur red when he was around six y ear s old. This testimony established three separ ate incidents of abuse occur ring anter ior to th e i n d i ctm ent, and there is no statute of limit ations for the offe nse of indece ncy with a child. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 12.01. Viewing the evidenc e in the light most favor able to the jury ’s verdic t, we conclude there

was sufficie nt evidenc e upon which a rational trier of fac t could have fou n d b ey o n d a rea sonable doubt the essential elements to support Appellant’s three convictions for the of fense of indec ency

3with a child by contac t. We overr ule Appellant’s sole issue on appe al and a ffirm the judg ment of the trial cour

t.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield Affir med Filed: Apr il 15, 2014 Do Not Publish

4