NO. 07-08 -028 5-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D MA RC H 24, 2 009

_________

_________

_________

___ JIMMY DALE HOLL ON, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 21 3 CRI MI NA L DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T AR RA NT COU NT Y; TH NO . 110 2864R ; H ON ORABLE LOU IS S TUR NS , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Ji mmyDale Holl on, w as conv icted b y j ur y v erdict of ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t of a c hil d and ind ecency w it h a c hil d by

co ntact. T h e jur

y as ses sed puni shment for eac h offense re specti v ely at sev en y ears co n f ine ment and ten y ears c ommunity super v is ion . Appel lan t appeals his conv icti on for agg ra v ated sex ual assaul t of a c hil d and2

a s s e rt s a s i n g l e p o i n t o f e r ro r t h a t t h e j u r y c h a rg e a u t h o r i z e d a n o n - u n a n i m o u s v e rd i c t
. W e aff ir m. Back ground On F ebr uar

y 28, 2008, the Tar ra nt C ounty Grand Jur

y retur ned a three c ount, mu ltiple the ory , indictme nt c ha rg ing Appellan t w ith tw o cou nts of agg rav ate d sexual assau lt of a chi ld and one co unt o f indec ency w it h a c hil d by

co ntact. C ount Tw o c harg ed App ellantw ith aggravated se x ual assa ult of a child as follows: CO UN T TW O: And i t i s f u rt h e r p re sented i n and to s aid C our t t hat t he Defendanti n the C ounty of Tarrant a nd St ate a foresaid on or aboutthe 1 st day of Ma y , 200 6, di d the n and there i ntent ion all y or kn ow ing ly

ca use the penetrati on of the anus of [A.L .], a chi ld y oung er than 14 y ears o f age w ho w as no t the spou se of

said defend ant , by inserting his pen is into her an us. PARAGRAPH TW O: And i t i s fur ther present ed i n and to sai d cour t that the defendant in the Cou nty of Tar ra nt
. . . on or about the 1 day of Ma y , 200 6, st did th en a nd th ere inte ntion ally or knowingl y cause the anu s of [A.L. ], a child y oung er than 14 y ears o f ag e w ho w as not the s pouse of sai d defendant, to cont actthe sex ual org an of the defendant .
. . . The Stat e w aiv ed C ount One a nd proceed ed to tr ial on C ount Tw o ( ag g ra v ated sexual assau lt of

a child) and Cou nt T hree (indecen cy w ith a child). At trial, the jury hea rd evidence th at, in M ay 200 6, A.L. ma de an out cry to her mo the r tha t App ellantw as sexually abu sing her. A.L.’s mo the r worked for App ellant ’s w ife. W hile App ellant ’s w ife an d A.L .’s mother w e re a tw o r k , A p p e l l a n tk e p tA
. L
. a n d h e r y o u n g e r b ro t h e r . A
. L
. t o l d h e r

m o t her that Appel lan t w as “mes si ng w it h [her ] tee- tee w it h his fing ers” and “t ri ed to w ig g le his tee-3

tee i n her

booty .” W hen ex a m in e d by a pe dia tr icnurse pract it ion er , A. L. t old her that Appel lan t’ s fin g er

r ubbed a nd pene trated her tee- tee a nd hi s t ee- te e we n t into her butt
. W hen as ked if anythi ng had come out, A.L. tol d the nurse there w as a w et s pot o n the bed. A.L. tes ti fied th at, dur ing her naps , Ap pel lan t “s tuc k his hand dow n [he r] pant s” and “s tuc k h is pr iv ate i n [he r] bac k p ri v ate.” Sh e a lso t est ified thatAppel lan t’ s h and w ent “i nsi de” her

pr iv ate a nd th at hi s p ri v ate w ent “ in” her “ back si de.” She t est ified thi s o cc ur re d more than once. A.L. drew a picture of A ppel lan t’ s peni s. She further tes ti fied th at, after Appel lan t di d the se thi ng s t o her , t here w oul d be “a l ittl e w et s pot” on t he s heet. Appel lan t t est ified that h e w as inn ocentand deni ed ev er touc hin g A.L
. ina ppropr iat ely
. He tes ti fied th at A .L. used to w alk i n on him w hen h e wa s u si ng the restroom so of

ten “it f inally got t o t h e p o in tw here I w ould just hold e v erything unt il somebody

else g ot t here to w atc h her w hil e I w ent.” H e al so tes ti fied th at he w oul d often cl ean A. L.’ s g eni tal and anal areas w hen s he had “a cc ide nts ” in her pant s. At the conclusio n of

the trial, the State mad e no forma l e le c t io n of w hich th eory i t w ould rely

upo n for conviction and t h e trial court cha rg ed th e jury on Coun t Two, in pertin entpart, as follows:

No w b e a ri n g in m in d t h e fo re go in g i n s t ru c t io n s , if yo u b e li e ve from the ev iden ce bey ond a re asona ble doubt , t hat o n or about the 1 dayof

May , 2006, in Tar ra nt C ounty , Tex as, the st defend ant , Jimm y

Dale Hollon, did then and there int ent iona lly or knowing ly

cause the pe net ration of t he a nus o f

[A.L. ], a child y oun ger than 14 y ears of age w ho w as notthe spo use o f said4 defendant by

i nser ti ng hi s p eni s int o her anus; or di d the n and the re inten tiona lly

or know ingly

cause the an us of

[A.L. ], a child y oun ger than 14 y ears of age w ho was not the sp ouse o f said defendant, to c ontact t he s ex ual org an of the Defendant , t hen y ou wi ll find the Defend antguilty of a gg rav ate d sexual assau lt of a chi ld as charg ed i n C ount Tw o of the ind ictment. Reg ardin g the jur

y ch arg e for Cou nt Tw o, the Stat e ind ic ated in it s c los ing arg ument that, i f eithe r penetrat ion or co ntact w ere prov en bey ond a re asona ble doubt , “ then that elem entis met.” App ellant did no t obje ct to the State ’s fa ilure to ma ke an election or to this arg ument. Thereafter, the jur y found Appel lan t g uil ty on C ounts Tw o and Three and pu n is hm entw as asse ssed a t seven y ears con f inem entfor CountTwo and te n y ears communi ty

su per v is ion on C ount Three. Thi s a ppeal foll ow ed.

Discus sion App ellantasserts tha t he was denied his ri ght to a un anim ous jury v erdict be cause it is i mp ossible to de term ine f rom th e jury ’s g ene ral v erdict w het her the jury una nim ously d e t e rm in e d A p p e ll a n tca u s e d p e n e t ra t io n o r c o n t a c t , o r s p li tt h e ir vo t e s b e twe e n t h e two act s. The Sta te asser ts the d is

jun cti v e c harg e w as proper bec ause Appel lan t w as not charg ed w it h s eparate o ffenses but alt er nati v e means of commi tti ng one offense. Anal yz ing a j ur

y -c harg e i ss u e inv olv es a two- ste p proces s. W e mustfirst deci de w hether the tr ial co urt er re d i n i ss uin g the charg e. Ngov. Sta te , 175 S.W .3d 7 38, 7 43 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 05). T hen , if error ex ists, w e mu st a n a lyze wh eth er suf f icient ha rm re sul ted from the er ro r to req uire rev ersal
. Id.5

I. Jury

Unanimity A j ur y v erdict i n a cr imi nal cas e must be unani mous. Tex
. Con st. art. V, § 13. See C o d e C r i m. P ro c . A n n . a rt
. 3 6
. 2 9 ( a ) ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 )
. B e c a u s e o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a nonunani mous j ur

y v erdict, “s eparate o ffenses ” shoul d not be submi tted to t he j ur y i n the dis jun cti v e. Fr

anci s v . St ate , 36 S.W .3d 1 21, 1 24- 25 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000) ; Clem ent v. State , 248 S.W .3d 791, 800 (Tex .App. –For t W orth 2008, no pet.)
. T h e un a n imi ty re q uirement i s not v iol ated, how ev er , w hen the jur y is ins tr uct ed on alt er nati v e the or ies , or manner and means, of commi tti ng the same offense and the defendant doe s n ot de mand an el ect ion before the c ase is su bmitted to the jur y for consi derati on. Pi

z zo v . Stat e, 23 5 S. W .3 d 71 1, 7 15 ( Tex .C r i m. Ap p. 20 07 )
. W he re al te r na te t he or i es o f c om mi tt i ng t he s am e o f fe n se are su b m it te d to th e ju ry in t h e di sju n ct ive, an d th e ju ry is re qui re d by th e ch a rge to f ind ea ch elem entof

the of fense beyond a rea sona ble dou bt, it is app ropriate for t he jury to retur n a g eneral v erdict i f the ev ide nce is su ff ic ien t t o s uppor t a findi ng under a ny

of the theor ies su bmitted. Kitch ens v. State, 823 S.W .2d 256 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 1). II. Aggrav ated Sex ual A ssa ult of

a Child Charge A person commi ts an offense of ag g ra v ated sex ual assaul t on a chil d if the p erson int enti onal ly

or kn ow ing ly

performs any

of the follo w ing acts and t he v icti m is y oung er than fourteen y ears o f age : (1 ) caus es the p enetrati on of th e a n u s or se x ual org an of a c hil d by any me ans;S e e a ls o S a n te e v . S ta te , 247 S. W
. 3d 7 24, 728 - 29 ( T ex. App. – H oust on [ 1 D i st
. ] 200 7, no pet
. ) ( ci t i ng st 1 H e n d rixv . S ta te , 1 5 0 S .W .3 d 8 3 9 , 8 4 8 (T e x .A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 D i s t.] 2 0 0 4 , p e t. re f’d )) ; Va l d e z v . S ta te , 211 th S .W .3 d 3 9 5 , 4 0 0 (T e x .A p p .– E a s tl a n d 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.); T y s o n v . S ta te , 17 2 S
. W
. 3d 17 2, 17 8 (T ex . A pp . –F ort W o rth 2 0 0 5 , p e t. re f’d ). 6 (2 ) caus es the p enetrati on of t he mouth of a chi ld by the sex ual org an of the acto r; (3 ) caus es the s ex ual org an of a c hil d to cont actor pene trate the mout h, anu s, or sex ual organ of ano the r person, including the a ctor; (4 ) caus es the a nus of a c h ild t o c ontact t he mouth , anu s, or se x ual org an of another

person, i ncl udi ng the act or ; or (5 ) cau se s the mout h of a c hil d to cont actthe anus or se x ual org an of another person, i ncl udi ng the act or . . . . T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 22. 021 (B)(i- v ) ( Verno n Sup p. 20 08). Sect ion 22 .02 1 is a cond uct-orien ted of fense and each sepa ratel y described act g enerall y

co nst it utes a s eparate s tatut or y offense. Vick

v. Sta te , 991 S.W .2d 8 30, 8 32- 33 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)
. How ev er , t he offense of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t by g eni tal -t ogenital cont act i s nece ssarily “subsu me d” w ithin the of fense of sexual assau lt by p enile p e n e trati on of the female s ex ual org an. See Patter son v. State, 152 S. W .3d 8 8, 92 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2004) ; Vick , 991 S.W .2d a t 834 n.2. Beca use the c harg es are s ubsumed, 1 penetrati on and cont actmay be c harged i n t h e disj unct iv e w it hout dang er thatdi fferent jurors w ill agree a crime ha s be e n c o m m it t ed b ut disa gree u pon w hich on e. T his is so becau se ev er

y j uror w ho bel iev ed th at t he defendant penetrated the victim’ s a nus neces sar il y

beli ev ed that the anteceden t contact had occ ur re d. Ty son , 172 S. W .3d a t 178I n S tu h le r v . S ta te , 218 S. W
. 3d 7 06, 717 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 7) , t he Cour t not ed t hat chi l d- abuse 2 c rim e s m a y b e re g a rd e d a s c o n ti n u o u s o ff e n s e s w h i c h d o “n o t re q u i re ju ry u n a n i m i ty o n a n y s p e c i fic , d i s c re te ac t
. . . . ” Id
. at 717 n. 26 ( quot i ng di ct a i n J e ffe rs o n v . S ta te , 18 9 S
. W
. 3d 30 5, 31 3 n
. 11 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 06 ))
.

G o n za l e z S o to v . S ta te , 267 S. W
. 3d 3 27 ( T ex. App. –C orp us Chr i st i 200 8, no pet
. h. ) i s al so 3 i nappo si t e. I n S o to , th e v i c ti m d e s c rib e d tw o d i s ti n c t i n c i d e n ts o f th e s a m e a c t o f p e n e tra ti o n . Id
. at 338 - 39. S e e a ls o C o o kv . S ta te , 19 2 S
. W
. 3d 11 5, 11 9 (T ex . A pp . –H ou s t on [ 14 D i s t
. ] 20 06 , no pe t
. ). th 7 (qu o ti n g Hendrix , 150 S.W .3d a t 847-48 ). Thus, the t ri al cour t’ s i nst ru cti on on ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t w as proper because the penetrati on of fense subsumed the conta ct offense. Appel lan t cont ends thi s ex cept ion is ina ppl ic abl e becau se there w as ev ide nce that pen etrat ion an d con tact o c c u rr e d m ore tha n on ce. App ellant , howev er, did no t face acc usat ion s o f multi ple or se parate act s of pe netrati on or cont actnor w as there tes ti mony desc ri bin g any

sp eci fic i nci dent other t h a n t h e i nci dent charg ed i n the i ndi ctment
. Mo re o ve r, a lt h o u gh A
. L
. t e s t if ie d t h a ta n a l p e n e t ra t io n o c c u rr e d m o re t h a n o n c e , sh e ga ve onl y one desc ri pti on of thi s a buse. Sh e di d notsp ecify how many ti mes i t hap pened o r d is t in gu is h o n e a s s a u ltf ro m a n o t h e r– t e m p o ra ll y o r s u b s t a n t ive ly. 2 App ellantcites Ma rt

ine z v. Sta te , 212 S.W .3d 4 1 1 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2006, pet. re f’d) , for the proposi ti on that, w here more than one act of penetrati on or co ntact i s p ro v en, a di sj unct iv e ins tr uct ion cons ti tutes er ro r. H ow ev er , Ma rt ine z is i nap posite beca use th ere wa s “e vid e n c e o f

m o re t h a n o n e a c tin vo lvi n g c o n t a c t , a n d t h o s e a c t s d id n o ta lwa ys in vo lve pen etrat ion.” Id. at 418- 19. In Ma rt ine z , t h e v i c t i m’ s m o t h e r t e s t i fi e d t h a t“ the abuse happen ed on more than one occas ion ,” and that abus e w as “di fferent s ometi mes.” Id. at 419. H ere, t he abus e happe ned more tha n onc e butw as the s ame eac h ti me. 38

Acc ordi ng l y , ba s ed u po n ou r rev i ew o f t he e nt i re rec ord, w e ov er r ul e Ap pe llant’s poi nt of er ro r. Conclusion The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Patr ic k A . Pi rt le Ju sti ce Do notpub lish