i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No . 0 4- 08 -0 08 05 -C R T e r r y TR EN TA CO STA , Appellant
v. THE STA TE OF TE XA S, Appellee F ro m th e 39 9th

Judic ia l D ist

ri c t Co ur t, B e xar County , T e xas Trial Court No. 2006-CR-6469 Honora ble J uanita Va squez-Gar dner , J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion , J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: September 9, 2009 AFF I RMED Def endant, Terry Trenta costa, was char g ed with five counts of ag g ravated sexual assault and two counts of indec ency

with a child by

sexual contact. A jury

found him g uilty

on all counts, and assessed puni s h m en t at forty y ear s’ conf

inement for e ach c ount of ag g ravated sexual assault, and twenty y ear s’ conf

inement for the two counts of indec ency with a child. On appe al, def endant contends the e vidence is le g ally insufficient to suppor t the verdic t on count seven of the indictment
and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the ve rd ic t on

c ounts thr e e , f

our, and se ve n. We a ff

ir m.04
- 08
- 00 80 5- CR

1 ... D e fen d a n t d o e s n o t ch a llen g e the ju ry’s v e rd ic t o n c o u n t o n e o f t h e ind ic tm e n t.

- 2- LEGAL AND F ACTUAL SUF F ICIENCY We reviewthe suffic iency of the e vidence under the appropr iate st an d ar d s of re view. See J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 19 (1 97 9) (l e g a l su ff ic ie nc y ); Gu e v ara v . S

tate , 152 S.W .3d 45, 49 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ) ( same ); Ro be rts v . S tate , 220 S.W .3d 521, 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (fa ctual suff

iciency ). I n h is f ir st a nd se c on d is su e s, de fe nd ant ass ert s the e vid e nc e is b oth le g a lly and fa c tua lly insufficient to support his convic t i o n o n co unt seven of the indictment. Counts one and seven char g ed def

endant wi t h ag g ravated sexual assault of a c hild alleg ing de fenda nt intentionally

and kn ow ing ly

c a us e d th e se xua l org an of t he c omp la ina

nt t o c on ta c t hi s mo uth , o n tw o s e pa rate date s. Def endant c ontends the evide nce w as insufficie nt to support the ver dict on count seve n beca use the evidenc e did not establish he ca used the c omplainant’s sexual org an to contac t his mouth on m ore than one oc casion. 1 I n the complainant’s statement to the police, which was enter ed into e videnc e, t he complainant re counted the f irst time she was assaulted: “I t was nig ht time, he came in my room and started to kiss me and hugme and sa y he loved me. T hen h e t o o k o ff my pajama bottoms and underw ear . Then he put his finge r in my vag ina and also licked it .” She continues t o descr ibe the
rec urringabuse: “ I t s t ar t ed at n ight, but then he started to do it in the morning befor e school a nd when we wer e home a lone. I n the m orning he would come in my room and turn my alar m clock off and wake me u p an d d o t h e s ame thing s.” The c omplainant also descr ibed the last time she wa s assaulted: “H e put his fing er in my vag ina and licked it .” On appe al, def endant c ontends “it” is too04
- 08
- 00 80 5- CR

- 3- vag ue to indicate w ith certa inty whether the complainant was refe rring to defe ndant’s finge r or he r vag ina. At trial, the complaina nt testified that the first time she was assaulted by defe ndant he entere d her r oom in the middle of the nig ht, took off her clothes, inserte d his fi n ger i n to her va g ina, and

“ lic ke d [her] pri vate are a .” He r “ pr ivate are a ” wa s late r i de nti fi e d a s h e r v a g ina . Wh e n a sk e d to descr ibe the other

times she was a ssaulted, the complainant testified that “it happene d -- the - - the -- lik e t h e f i r s t t i m e , l i k e t h e s a m e t h i n g . ” A f t e r a r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d , w e c on c lud e tha t a
ratio na l tr ie r o f fa c t cou ld have fo un d that the State me t its bu rd e n to pr ov e the e sse nti a l e le me nts of the off ense a nd the evidenc e wa s not so we ak that the verdic t on count seven w as cle arly wrong
or manif e stl y un jus t. I n h is thir d is su e , d e fe nd ant c la ims the e vid e nc e wa s f a c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

a g uil ty
ve rd ic t on c ount t hr e e of the ind ic tme nt, wh ic h all e g e d de fe nd ant ca us e d the c omp la ina

nt’ s mo uth to co n t act his sexual org an. De fenda nt argues that bec ause the complainant testified de fenda nt’s penis was nor

mal, and ther e wa s evidenc e h i s p en i s was in fa ct def ormed, the g reat weig ht and preponde ranc e of the evidenc e contr adicts the jury ’s ver dict. Th e c omp la ina

nt t e sti fi e d a t tr ia l that de fe nd ant pu t his pe nis in h e r m ou th. Whe n a sk e d if de fe nd ant’ s p e nis loo ke d li ke a pic tur e that sh e ha d se e n in he a lth c la ss, c omp la ina nt’ s f ir st r e sp on se was “ Idon’t know. I

don’t pay attention. Iwanted to block it.” When asked ag ain, s he said “y es.” Def endant a rg ues on appe al that it is im possible to believe the complainant would not have noticed his d e f o r me d p e n is
. We c o n s tr

u e d e f e n d an t’ s ar g u me n t a s ana s s e rti o nth a t t h e c o mp la in an t w as ly ing a bout the alleg ed sex ual contact beca use, i f she wer e telli ng the t ruth, she would have descr ibed defe ndant’s penis a s defor med. Howe ver, “ [t ]he jury is the exclusive judge of the cr edibil i t y

of04
- 08
- 00 80 5- CR

2 ... D e fen d a n t also a sse rts c o u n t fo u r is fac tua lly ins u ff ic ie n t b e c a u se the c o m p la ina n t ch a ra c te riz e d his p e n is as nor mal
. W e ove r r ul e t hi s ar gu ment f or t he s ame r eas ons di s cus s ed i n our di s po s i t i on of def endan t ’ s t hi r d i s s ue.

- 4- witnesses and of

the weig ht to be g iven testimony , and it is a lso the exclusive province of the jury to rec oncile conf

licts in the evidence .” W esb ro ok v. St ate , 29 S.W .3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (e n banc) . Her e, the ju ro rs ch o s e to believe the complainant’ s testimony and we may

not subst i t u t e o u r judgme nt reg ardingthe cr edibility of the witnesse s for that of the jury
. See Vo do c ho ds k

y v . S tate , 158 S.W .3d 502, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Reviewing all the evidenc e, we hold that the e vidence is factua lly sufficie nt to support the jury ’s ver dict on count three
. I n h is f ourt h is su e , d e fe nd ant c la ims the e vid e nc e wa s f a c tu all y in su ff

ic ie nt t o s up po rt

a g uilty verdic t on c ount f

our of the indictment, which alleg ed indec ency with a child by

causingthe complainant to touch his sexual org an. 2 At trial, the complaina

nt testified defe ndant “would tell [her] to touch his penis and [she]
wo uld te ll h im n o s o h e wo uld take [he r] h and and he wo uld pu t it on the re wi th h is a

nd he wo uld g o up an d

d o w n . ” Sh e a ls o te s ti f

ie d d e f e n d an t w o u ld

e ja c u late o nh e r

b e d s h e e ts
. D efe ndant’s
semen wa s found on the complaina nt’s bedspre ad. Defenda nt argues his semen wa s on the bedspre ad bec ause it wa s previously used on the bed he shared with the complaina nt’s mother. He also claimed he and the c omplainant’s mot h er h ad sex i n ever y room in the house, including the complainant’s be droom, and that is how his semen g ot on the complainant’s be d s p read. The
c omp la ina

nt’ s mo the r d e nie d e ve r h a vin g se x wi th de fe nd ant i n h e r d a ug hte r’ s r oo m. O n a

pp e a l, defe ndant questi ons the complainant’s cre dibilit y beca use she testified defendant e jaculate d on her bed shee ts and not her be dsprea d. Def endant argues the prese nce of his se men on the complaina nt’s bedspre ad is insufficient to prove he committed the off ense c harg ed i n co u n t four. How ever , the prese nce of

his se men on the complaina nt’s bedspre ad wa s not the only evidenc e pre sented to prove04
- 08
- 00 80 5- CR

- 5- the alleg e d

o f f e n s e . T h e c o mp la in an t t e s ti f ie d d e f e n d an t f o r c e d h e r to to u c h h is p e n is , an d

h er statement to the police, the sexual a ssault e x amination nurse’ s testimony , and the outcr y witness’s te sti mony a ll s up po rt

he r t e sti mony . A s st a te d a bo ve , the jur

y is the e xclu siv e jud g e of

the c re dib ili ty of witnesses a

nd of the weig ht to be given testim ony . On t his rec ord, we cannot conclude that the evidenc e is so contra

ry to the overw helming w eig ht of t h e ev idence as to be c lear ly wrongand unjust. Se e Ro be rts , 220 S.W .3d at 524. CO NC LU SION We o ve rr ule de fe nd ant’ s is su e s o n a pp e a l and a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice DO NO T PU B L I SH