AFFIRMED as Modified; Opinion Filed February 12, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 12
- 01632
- CR LORVIN RODRIGUEZ ZAM BRANO , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11
- 58067
- W 

### OPINION Before Justices O ’ Neill, Myers, and Brown Opinion by Justice Myers A jury convicted a ppellant Lorvin Rodriguez Zambrano of a ggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of fourteen , and the trial court sentenced him to seventy

- five years in prison

. In three issues, he contends the trial court erred when it allowed the admission of appellant’s transcribed audio statement, the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, and that the sentence violated the United States and Texas constitutions

. In a cross

- point, the State argues the judgment should be modified. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
B AC KGROUND AND P ROCEDURAL H ISTORY The complainant, F.G., seventeen years old at the time of trial, testified that she was born in Honduras on February 26, 1995

. F.G. first met appellant when she lived in Honduras

–– she described him as “like a family friend.” F.G. moved to Lancaster, Texas from Honduras around the year 2003, when she was eight years old. Her family, including her mother, father, and two– 2

– sisters , were already living there when F.G. moved to the United States . T he family later moved to an apa rtment at 4901 Rolling Meadows in Dallas, Texas. Appellant moved to the Dallas a rea from Honduras a few years after F.G.’s family. F.G. occasionally saw appellant, who worked with F.G.’s father, at gatherings of friends and family but did not speak to h im very often. In 2008, appellant and F.G. started talking on the phone to each other following a New Year’s party the previous year. They spoke on the phone and texted each other quite often, and began dating in June of 2008, when F.G. was thirteen year s old and in the eighth grade

. Appellant was twenty

- eight. According to F.G., she told appellant her age. They kissed for the first time the morning after appellant returned from working out of state. Appellant initiated the kiss, according to F.G.’s testimony . B y November or December of 2008 , their relationship escalated to the point where F.G. skip ped school to stay home with appellant

. On that occasion, they had sex in F.G.’s bedroom

. F.G. testified that appellant pushed her shorts to one side and placed his penis in her vagina ; he did not ejaculate

. F.G. estimated that she and appellant had sex “[p]robably like two or three times a month” during their approximately t wo - year - and

- ten

- month relationship, either at he r parent ’ s residence or appel lant’ s apartment , and that t hey may have had sex over twenty times

. B ut F.G. could not recall any other specific dates or times they had sex between November of 2008 and her fourteenth birthday in February of 2009. Appellant and F.G. tried to keep their relationship secret. In January of 2009, however, F.G.’s mother saw text messages indicating that F.G. had been talking to appellant. Her parents had appellant come over to talk to them, but F .G. and appellant “ denied everything

. ” After that,
t hey continued to talk to and see each other in secret

. Meanwhile, F.G. was skipping school to see appellant. Later that year, after F.G. ’s father examined F.G’s phone and d iscovered that she was still contacting appellant, he called appellant and went to his apartment and confronted him.– 3

– F.G.’s parents asked her to stop talking to appellant “because he was too old and all that

. ” She “pretended that we weren’t talking anymore , ” b ut F.G. and appellant cont inued seeing each other in secret and having sexua l intercourse. Alt hough F.G.’s parents took away her phone on those occasions when they caught her contacting appellant, she continued communicat ing with him by other means

–– using her residential telephone , friends’ phones, and a phone that appellant had
g iven her. F.G. tried to end the relationship because appellant “ was becoming obsessive with me , ” “questioning me about everything , ” and threatening to h urt himself or come over to her residence and tell her parents about their relationship

. F.G. testi fied that she went “back to him so he would just be quiet about it and leave me alone, because he wouldn’t leave me alone, even if I asked.” Appellant would occasionally call F.G.’s residen tial telephone number an d “ stay quiet on the phone and stuff” when someone answered

. F.G.’s parents would ask her if she knew who was calling, but she would “always tell them no.” F.G. tried to break up with appellant several times before the relationship ended

. When F.G. attempted to break up with appellant, th ey would talk on the phone at night and appellant would tell F.G. “that he wanted to see me for the last time.” Appellant took F.G. to a motel and attempted to have sex with her , but s he refused , after which a ppellant tried to force himself on her

. F.G. then “struggled trying to get him off me for like fi v e minutes or ten.” F.G. was able to
ge t away from appellant , and he apologized

. She asked him to take her back to school, but he refused and she stayed with him for the rest of the day

. Approximately two to three weeks later, appellant picked F.G. up from school and they went back to the motel. Appellant again tried to talk F.G. into resuming their relationship. Although she refused, F.G. had sex with appellant. Before their relationsh ip ended, F.G. also tried t o return to appellant the phone he had g iven her, but he would not accept it

. F.G. testified that she and appellant had sex for the final time– 4

– approximately two to four weeks later. By the time h er relationship with appellant e nded , in March of 2011, F.G. was in the tenth grade. F.G. testified that she decided to tell her parents about her relationship with appellant because, in part, she grew t ired to the calls and text messages she was receiving from him

. F.G. told her pare nts that appellant was “the person that was calling them , ” and that she and appellant “kept on dating after that.” She initially denied they were having sex, but eventually admitted it. When she told her parents that she and appellant were having sex, “they were both re ally upset.” Her parents called the police

. The police came to F.G.’s residence that night and spoke to her about her relationship with appellant . She admitted in her trial testimony that, during that first interview with the police , she di d not tell the m “ everything

. ” She later spoke to Detective Clark 1 with the Child Exploitation Unit of the Dallas Police Department

–– the lead detective on this case

–– and provided a written statement detailing what had happened

. At that detective’s d irection , F.G. called appellant in an attempt to get him to admit that the two of them had had sexual intercourse. During th e phone call, appellant admitted having a relationship with F.G. but did
not “ directly ” admit to hav ing sex with her. Detective Denise Rodriguez, an investigator with the Dallas Police Department’s Child Exploitat ion Unit, testified that she was brought into the investigation to assist Clark because he did not speak Spanish

. T he interview with appellant took place o n July 24, 2011

. Rodriguez interviewed appellant in Spanish, and the interview was both audio and video

- recorded. After reading appellant his Miranda rights and confirming, orally and in writing, that appellant understood those rights, Rodriguez discussed the case with appellant. According to Rodriguez, appellant told her that F.G. had been his girlfriend for three years, that they started dating on

1 The record does not reveal Clark’s f ull name.– 5

– March 28, 2008, that the ir relationship lasted approximately three years, and that they broke up “in about” January of 20 11 “because [F.G.] wanted to.” Appellant also told Rodriguez that he was twenty

- eight years old and F.G. was thirteen when they first started dating, and that he was aware of F.G’s age and knew it was against the law for him to have sex with someone that age . 2 Appella nt stated that the relationship “became sexual” approximately six to seven months after they started dating, and that he had sex with F.G. “approximately 30 to 40 times within that three

- year period” at the apartment where F.G. previously lived, appellant’s apartment, and F.G.’s parents’ residence

. Appellant told Rodriguez that F.G. “skipped school approximately 10 to 15 times to be with him and have sex.” At the end of the interview, appellant declined to make a written statement , and wa s allowed to leave. 3 The State also offered the testimony of two experts: Wynn Shaw, a clinical supervisor at the Dallas Children’ s Advocacy Center; and Dr. Kathleen Lang, a medical doctor at the REACH clinic

–– the R eferral and E valuation of A t

- R isk C hil dren. Shaw testified regarding the ways in which a person can win the trust of a child, and how perpetrators will manipulate a child. Lang , who did not examine F.G. or review her medical records, testified that , in a bout ninety

- five percent of their case s the child would “have what we call a normal exam , and that’s where we look at the child and we do a very good external genital exam, and everything looks normal.”

2 The relevant portion of the reporter’s record reads as follows: Q. [PROSECUTOR:] Did he indicate to you when the relationship began as far as how old he was and how old she was at the time? A. [RODRIGUEZ:] Yes. He stated that [F.G.] was 13 and that he was 28. Q. So he was aware of how old she was at that time? A. Yes. Q. As far as him knowing that it was against the law for him to speak to someone or to date someone or have sex with someone that age, did he understand that that was also against t he law? A. Yes.
3 Appellant was not placed under arrest at that time, according to Rodriguez, because she wanted to update the lead detective , Detective Clark, about the interview . Clark w as responsible for filing the case against appellant

.– 6

– Lang added that “[t] he further you get from the event, the likelihood of finding anything goes significantly down.” She referred to studies concerning “ c hildren who have reported repetitive penetrating events that still have normal exam s .” Lang testified that, i f ejaculation occur red , th e first seventy

- two hours would usually be when an exami nation migh t find semen for DNA analysis

. The first witness called by the defense was Vanessa Mendez, F.G’ s friend, w ho testified that she first met F.G. in the fifth grade and that they lived together for approximately one year

. Me n dez testified that s he was sixteen years of age and in the ninth grade, and F.G. was approximately fourteen and in the eighth grade, when they lived together in 2009. But s he w as not living with F.G. or F.G.’s family in 2008. Appellant testified that he knew F.G. and her family because they lived in the same neighborhood in Honduras. He said that after moving to the United States in 2006 or 2007, he lived with one of F.G.’s uncle s, and became re acquainted with F.G. at a party. He testified that his relationship with F.G. began after she turned fourteen on February 26, 2009, and that their sexual relationship began in October or November of 2009, by which point F.G. would have been at least fourteen

- and

- a - half years old

. He testified that he tried “[m]any times” to “cut o ff the relationship” with F.G. and “would tell her to look for a young man her age , ” and that he was “just now finding out the problems and consequences a person could have” from having a relationship with a fourteen

- year - old. When asked if he had a roman tic or “ love ” interest in F.G., appellant replied, “Well, yes. At the end that’s how everything was.” On cross

examination, he insisted that F.G. was already fourteen years old when they b egan having sex ual intercourse

. The prosecutor also asked appellant, who testified that he had a thirteen

- year - old daughter and ten

- year - old son in Honduras, how he would feel if his thirteen

- year - old daughter– 7

– ha d sex with a thi rty

- year - old man. A ppellant replied: “ If my daughter loves him, what can I do. But if she ’ s confused at that moment, what can I do? ” After both sides rested, the State abandoned the continuous sexual abuse language in the indictment and proceeded to the jury on aggravated sexual assault of a child. The jury found appellant guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child

. During the punishment hearing held before the trial court, the State resubmitted its case

in

- chief and rested. Two witnesses testified for the defense. Appellant’s brother, Elgon Giovanni Zambrano, testified that a ppellant was a good person, that he worked hard to help support their family, and that he tried to end the relationship with F.G. He added: “There was almost a year that he went to Houston to work for the same reason, but she would also just keep on ins isting.” Astrid Cruz

- Perez , a ppellant’s distant cousin, blamed F.G. for what happened to

a ppellant . She testified that F.G. “ seduced ” her cousin “until she got what she wanted,” that appellant “ended up being the victim because there were so many occasions that he tried not to even talk to her, ” and that F.G. ha s the “mind of an older person.” She also testified that

a ppellant was “a good guy” who had “ never done anything wrong ” and that F.G., far from being the victim, was to blame for what happened. Astrid a dmit ted she had never met or talked to F.G.

or F.G.’s parents , and that her testimony regarding F.G. was based on things she had been told by other people

. Following the conclusion of the evidence and argument s by counsel , the trial court sentenced a ppellant to seventy

- five years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

. D ISCUSSION Transcript of Audio Statement In his first issue, appellant argues that the trial c ourt erred by allowing the admission of appellant’s transcribed audio statement because the statement was not properly authenticated.– 8

– The State argues appellant did not preserve this issue for appellate review and that, alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion. Tienda v. State , 358 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). As long as the trial court’s ruling is “within the zone of reasonable dis agreement,” w e will not disturb the ruling. Id . (quoting Montgomery v. State , 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (op. on reh’g)). Only relevant evidence is admissible. T EX
. R. E VID . 401, 402. Evidence has no relevance if it is not authenticall y what the proponent claims it to be. Tienda , 358 S.W.3d at 638.

“ Through authentication, the proponent of an exhibit proves that the exhibit is what its proponent claims. ” McLeod v. State , 56 S.W.3d 704, 709 (Tex. App.

–– Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet. ) (citing T EX
. R. E VID . 901(a) )

. Rule 901(a) defines authentication as a “condition precedent” to admissibility of evidence that requires the proponent to make a threshold showing that would be

“ sufficient to support a finding that the matter in quest ion is what its proponent claims.” See
T EX
. R. E VID . 90 1 (a)

. Rule 901(b)(1) provides that authentication may be accomplished by testimony from a witness with knowledge that the “ matter is what it is claimed to be. ” Id

. at 901(b)(1). The rules of eviden ce also provide that extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to certain categories of documents. See id . 902

. For example, a document that is “accompanied by a certificate of acknowledgmen t executed in the manner provided by law by a notary public or other officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments” is self

- authenticat ing

. Id . at 902(8). During the trial, after Detective Rodriguez testified about the July 2011 interview and

a ppellant’s statements , the State offered as evidence State’s Exhibit 4, “a certified copy of the transcription of [ a ppellant’s] interview that was conducted by Detective Rodriguez.” Defense counsel questioned Rodriguez on vo i r dire about her familiarity w ith the transcript:– 9

– Q. [ DEFENSE COUNSEL : ] Detective Rodriguez, in a prior hearing, when I was asking you about portions of the transcript, you indicated that you had not actually compared portions of the transcript with the actual recording to see if they ’re accurate; is that right? A. [ RODRIGUEZ : ] That’s right. Q. So without having reviewed and compared this translation to the original recording, you really can’t vouch for the complete accuracy of the document; is that right? A. No. I do remember parts of the interview that

–– I have reviewed the video previously so I do remember it. Q. So part of it may be correct? A. Yes. Q. But we’re not sure about all of it. At this point d efense counsel s tated, “Judge, I would object,” to which t he State responded , “It’s a certified copy, Your Honor.” T he trial court overruled the defense’s objection and admitted the exhibit, noting counsel’s exception to the court’s ruling

. Assuming, without deciding, that appellant preserved error, t he certified and notarized
tr anslation introduced by the State was a self

- authenticating document, which did not require extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to its admissibility. See T EX
. R. E VID
. 902(8)

. The document contained the signature of Emil ia Le Gall o, who certified “that to the best of my knowledge and belief the foregoing is a true and correct rendition into English of the original document in Spanish , ” and that the translator was “ proficient in the languages

. ” The document also had the following c ertificate of acknowledgment executed by Rosa Hernandez, a notary public: Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, on this day personally appeared, Emilia Le Gallo, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed.– 10

– Accordingly, Rodriguez was not required to testify as to the accuracy of the translation to authenticate the transcript under rule 901 because the exhibit c ontained a certificate of acknowledgment executed by a notary public, thus making it self

- authenticating under rule 902(8). The trial court, then , did not abuse its discretion by admitting the transcript. Appellant’s first issue is overruled. Sufficiency of the Evidence In his second issue, appellant contends the evidence is i nsufficient to support the conviction because there is insufficient evidence showing he had sex with a child under the age of fourteen

. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency o f the evidence, we examine all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 3 19 (1979); Lucio v. State , 351 S.W.3d 878, 894

– 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Brooks v. State , 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.). We must defer to the jury ’ s credibility and weight determinations because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses ’ credibility and the weight to be given their testimony. See Jackson , 443 U.S. at 326. The indictment charged appellant with continuous sexual abuse of a young child , alleging that on or about November 1, 2008, he did: Then and there, inten tionally and knowingly, during a period that was 30 or more days in duration, when the defendant was 17 years of age or older, commit two or more acts of sexual abuse against [F.G.], a child younger than 14 years of age, hereinafter called complainant, nam ely by contact and penetration of the female sexual organ by defendant’s sexual organ. To obtain a conviction for this offense , the State needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that,

“ during a period that i s 30 or more days in duration, ” appellant commi tted “ two or more acts of sexual abuse ” and that, at the time of the commission of each of the acts of sexual abuse, he was– 11

– seventeen years of age or older and F.G. was a child younger than fourteen years of age. See
T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 21.02(b) (1), (2)

. Just before the close of evidence, t he State abandoned the allegation of continuous sexual abuse and proceeded on the lesser

- included offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child

. See Soliz v. State , 353 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ( “ To the extent that a continuous

sexual

- abuse indictment alleges certain specific offenses, an ‘ offense listed under Subsection (c) ’ [of penal code section 21.02 , which defines what constitutes an “act of sexual abuse” ] will always meet the first step of” a lesser

- included offense analysis (emphasis in original)). A person commits the offense of aggravated sexual assault, in relevant part, if he intentionally or knowingly “ causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of a child by any means ” a nd “ the victim is younger than 14 years of age. ” T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 22.021(a)(1)(B) (i), (2)(B )

. The testimony of a child sexual abuse victim alone is sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated sexual assault. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 38.07 ( b)(1) (requirement that victim inform another person of the alleged offense within one year does not apply if at the time of the alleged offense victim was seventeen years of age or younger) ; Bargas v. State , 252 S.W.3d 876, 888 (Tex. App

. –– Houston [14th D ist.] 2008, no pet.) ; Benton v. State , 237 S.W.3d 400, 404 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2007, pet. ref’d); Tear v. State , 74 S.W.3d 555, 560 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2002, pet. ref’d). A ppellant does not challenge the evidence that he intentionally or knowingly penetrated F. G.’s sexual organ with his sexual organ , but he argues the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he had sex with a child younger than fourteen years of age. Appellant argues that F.G. w as an unreliable and deceptive witness , asserting “there was no feasible way that the jury could have concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, ” that she was less than fou rteen years of age at the time he had sex with her

. However, F.G. testified that she– 12

– was thirteen years old when a ppellant firs t inserted his penis into her vagina in late 2008. The State wa s not required to introduce any medical reports or other physical evidence to corroborate the child victim’s testimony. Hiatt v. State , 319 S.W.3d 115, 121 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2010, pet. r ef’d); Benton , 237 S.W.3d at 404. F.G.’s uncorroborated testimony alone i s sufficient to support a ppellant’s conviction for aggravated sexual assault. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 38.07; Bargas , 252 S.W.3d at 888; Tear , 74 S.W.3d at 560. 4 Appellant also argues that other evidence showed he began having sex with F.G. in 2009 , when she was fourteen years old

. He alleges that the testimony of Villeva Garcia , F.G.’s mother, shows F.G. must have been fourteen years old because Villeva testified that Vanessa , F.G.’s friend, was sixteen years old when she moved in , and the two girls were approximately two years apart in age

. Villeva’s testimony , however, was unclear as to the date s Vanessa lived with them, and her only testimony regardi ng the ages of the two girls was that they were “[a]bout two years apart , ” and that Vanessa was “ [ l ] ike 16.” Furthermore, F.G. testified that she started having sex with a ppellant around November of 2008 , when she was thirteen years old , which was prior t o the time Vanessa moved in to F.G.’s parents’ residence in 2009. And while Vanessa testified that she thought F.G. was approximately fourteen years of age when Vanessa moved in with F.G.’s family, Vanessa stated that she did not live with F.G. in 2008. In addition, a lthough a ppellant testified that F.G. was fourteen years old when he began having sex with her, F.G. testified that she and appellant had sex in late 2008, when she was thirteen years of age, and D etective Rodriguez testified that appellant a dmitted he was twenty

- eight years old and F.G. was thirteen years of age when they first started dating. Rodriguez testified regarding a ppellant’s statements

4 We also note that, contrary to the statement in appellant’s brief, F.G. did not testify that her written statement to the police indi cated “she had sex with [a]ppellant sometime in November or December 2009.” Indeed, the part of the reporter’s record cited by app ellant shows that defense counsel asked F.G., “And in your written statement you say that it was sometime in November or December 2008 that you first had sexual intercourse; is that right.” She answered, “Yes.”– 13

– and the State offered a certified copy of the transcription of the interview conducted by Rodrigu ez, which was admitted over a ppell ant’s objection. As the exclusive judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence, the jury was free to believe F.G.’s testimony that a ppellant began having sex with her when she was younger than fourteen years of age

. The jury was likewise free to reject appellant’s testimony that F.G. was fourteen years old when they began having sex. See, e.g., Bustamante v. State , 106 S.W.3d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Based on the evidence presented, including the testimon y of F.G. and Detective Rodriguez, we conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. We overrule appellant’s second issue. Disproportionality of Appellant’s Sentence In his third and fourth issues, a ppellant contends the seventy

- five

- yea r prison sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime and inappropriate to the offender, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution. See U.S. C ONST . amend

. VIII, XIV; T EX
. C ONST . art. I, § 13. Appellant’s trial counsel did not object at the time of pronouncement that the sentence was disproportionate, nor did he move for a new trial based on that ground. 5 To preserve his complaint that the sentence was di sproportionate to the crime committed, appellant must have specifically objected on that basis at the time the sentence was pronounced or raised the issue in a post

- trial motion. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 33.1(a)(1); Jacoby v. State , 227 S.W.3d 128, 130 (Tex.
A pp.

–– Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d); Castaneda v. State , 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.

–– Dallas 2003, no pet.). Because he did not object when the sentence was pronounced or raise the issue in a motion for new trial, appellant has not preserved his complaints for appellate review. See Jacoby , 227 S.W.3d at 130; Castaneda , 135 S.W.3d at 723.

5 Appellant filed a motion for new trial, bu t the only issue asserted was that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence.– 14

– Nevertheless, w e note that a punishment assessed within the statutory range for an offense is neither excessive nor unconstitutionally cruel or unusual. Kirk v. State , 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.

–– Dallas 1997, pet. ref ’ d); see also Jackson v. State , 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Aggravated sexual assault of a child is a first

- degree felony, carrying a punishment range of five to ninety

- nine years or life imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 12.32(a); see also T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 22.021(e). The evidence show ed that appellant had sex with a thirteen

year - old child. In pr onouncing sentence, the trial court stated that appellant’s crime was a

“ despicable one,” that appellant had not expressed any shame or remorse for his crime, that the “flagrant perjury” in appellant’s testimony compounded appellant’s guilt , and that appel lant was

a “ danger to others

. ” Appellant’s seventy

- five year sentence is within the statutory range. Given the nature of the offense and the available punishment range, the record does not support appellant’s contention that his sentence was grossly disp roportionate to the offense. Moreover, there is no evidence in th is record comparing the sentence imposed here with punishments assessed for the same offense against other defendants in this or other jurisdictions. See Davis v. State , 125 S.W.3d 734, 736 (Tex. App.

–– Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Fluellen v. State , 71 S.W.3d 870, 873 (Tex. App.

–– Texarkana 2002, pet. ref’d). Appellant also does not cite any cases showing the punishments assessed for the same or similar offenses in this jurisdiction or other ju risdictions

. As a result, even if we were to overlook the fact that appellant’s contention wa s
not preserved for appellate review, he failed to show that the sentence was grossly disproportionate to the offense. See Fluellen , 71 S.W.3d at 873. We overru le appellant’s third and fourth issues.– 15

– Modification of Judgment
In a cross

- point, the State argues that the judgment should be modified to correct errors . The State first points out that the judgment bears the heading “ JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
BY COURT

— WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL .” Appellant , however, did not waive his right to a jury trial. T he judgment will therefore be modified to reflect that a jury convicted a ppellant and that, pursuant to a ppellant’s pretrial e le ction, the trial court assessed a p pellant’s punishment. The judgment also states that the offense for which a ppellant was convicted was “SEX ABUSE CONTINUOUS CHILD/14,” and that the statute for the offense was “21.02 Penal Code.” The record , however, show s that the State abandoned the al legation of continuous sexual abuse of a child during trial and proceeded on the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The theory of continuous sexual abuse under section 21.02 was not submitted to the jury. The jury returned a verdict finding a ppellant “guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child, as included in the indictment.” Hence , the jud gment will be modified to reflect a ppellant’s conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years of age under section 22 .021 of the p enal c ode. Additionally, the judgment states that a ppellant ple a d ed guilty to the charge and, under the heading, “Terms of Plea Bargain,” further states , “75 YEARS TDC; NO FINE.” But the record shows that a ppellant entered a plea of not guilty and that he con tested his guilt during trial. T he judgment will , thus , be modified to omit the reference to a plea agreement and show

a ppellant’s plea of not guilty. The judgment also incorrectly states that the “Sex Offender Registration Requirem ents do not apply to the Defendant , ” and states “N/A” for the age of the victim at the time of the offense. Appellant’s conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child subjects him to the sex offender registration requirements in chapter 62 of the Texa s Code of Criminal Procedure. See T EX
.– 16

– C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 62.001(5)(A). Accordingly, the judgment will be modified to show that the sex offender registration requirements apply and that the age of the victim at the time of the offense was thirtee n. See Jackson v. State , Nos. 05

– 12

– 00041 , 00042, & 000 43

– CR, 2012 WL 5359513, at * 2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Oct. 31, 2012, no pet.) ( mem. op., not designated for publication) (modifying judgments to show applicability of the sex offender registration requirements and age of the victim); Medlock v. State , No. 05

– 11

– 00668

– CR, 2012 WL 4125922, * 1

– 2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Sept. 20, 2012, no pet.) ( mem. op ., not designated for publication) (same). To summarize , w e sustain the State’s cross

- point and modify the judgment to show that (1) appellant was convicted by a jury ; (2) he was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years of age ; (3) the applicable statute for the offense is section 22.021 of the penal code; ( 4 ) he pleaded not guilty ; ( 5 ) there was no plea bargain ; ( 6 ) appellant’s conviction subjects him to the sex offender registration requirements in chapter 62 of the Te xas Code of Criminal Procedure ; and (7) the age of the victim at the time of the offense was thirteen

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State , 813 S.W.2d 526, 529

– 30 (Tex. App.

–– Dallas 1991, pet. ref d). As modified, we firm the trial court’s judgment.

/ Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 121632F.U05– 17

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
LORVIN RODRIGUEZ ZAMBRANO, Appellant No. 05

- 12

- 01632

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11

- 58067

- W. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices O'Neill and Brown participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: “JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY COURT

–– WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL” should be changed to “JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY JURY” Offense for Which Defendant Convicted : “SEX ABUSE CONTINUOUS CHILD/14” should be changed to “AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD/14” Statute for Offense : “21.02 Penal Code” should be changed to “22.021 Penal Code” Plea to Offense : “GUILTY” should be changed to “NOT GUILTY” Terms of Plea Bargain : “75 YEARS TDC/NO FINE” should be changed to “N/A” “Sex Offender Registration Requirements do not apply to the Defendant. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. Chapter 62” should be changed to “Sex Offend er Registration Requirements apply to the Defendant. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. Chapter 62” “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” should be changed to “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was 13” As MODIFIED , the judgment is AFFIRMED . We direct the trial court to prepare a new judgment t hat reflects these modifications.– 18

– Judgment entered this 12th day of February, 2014.

/Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE