### NUM BER 13-08- 0017 4-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
SA UL M IRA M ONT ES S OTO , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee. On appeal fr om the 370th Dist ri ct Court of

Hid alg o Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez A j ur y found appel lan t, Saul M iramontes Sot o, g uil ty of t hree count s o f agg ra v ated sex ual assaul t of

a chi ld, a firs t- deg re e f elo ny , and one countof indece ncy

w it h a c hil d by c o n t a c t , a s e c o n d
- d e g r e e fel ony . See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 22 .02 1(a)(1)(B)(i) , (a )( 1) (B )( ii i) , (a )( 2) (B ); 21.11( a) (1 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 009)

. Each offense w as enhanc ed by a pr ior felony co nv ic ti on, and the j ur

y as ses sed puni shmentat sev enty y ears’ i mpri sonment and a $10 ,00 0 f ine on each coun t of aggravated sex ual assault of a child and f if ty y ears’M

. G

. was t hi r t een y ear s ol d at t he t i m e of t he a l l eged off enses; “ M

. G

. ” i s a pseudony m t o pr ot ect 1 h e r i d e n ti ty

.

A d d i ti o n a l te s ti m o n y re v e a l e d th a t S o to w a s tw e n ty -s i x y e a rs o l d

. 2 2 im p ris onment a nd a $10,000 fine for the off ense of indec ency w it h a c hil d by

co ntac t, to be s er v ed c oncur re ntl y . See id. § § 1 2 .32 , 12. 33, 12.4 2 (Verno n Sup p. 20 09). By six is sues , Soto contends ( 1) the ev ide nce is i nsuffici ent t o s uppor t hi s c onv ic ti on for ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a chi ld as all eg ed in count three; (2) co unts one, tw o, an d four
v iolate the con stitutio nal proh ibition a gainst dou ble jeo pard y ; a n d ( 3 ) t h e trial court submi tted an er ro neous j ur y ch arg e a t the g uil t/i nnoce nce sta g e of tr ial

. W e aff ir m as modified

. I. B A CKGRO UND A . M.G.’s Testimony Thir teen- y ear-o ld M. G. tes ti fied th at t he offenses a t i ss ue oc cur re d i n the bac k o f a J eep on t h e m o rning of Jul y 7, 2007. O n J uly

6, 2007, M. G.’ s father g av e her 1 perm ission to spe n d t h e n ight w ith he r fif tee n-y ear-old f riend, J.P., atJ.P.’s hom e in Mission, T exas. Late th at night, J.P . received a telep hon e call f rom h er seventee n-y ear-old ex -b oyfrie nd, J .H

. J.H . i nv it ed J .P. to g o to South Padre Isl and w it h hi m, butJ. P. refused. M. G., w anti ng to g o to M cAl len to v is ither brot her , I.G., as ked J.P . i f J.H . w oul d dr iv e her the re. J. H. a greed , and a roun d 12: 00 a.m . or 1 :00 a .m ., he arriv ed to pick up M.G. J.H.
w as drivin g a w hit e J eep and a man, l ater i denti fied as Sot o, w as si tti ng i n the front pass eng er

seat. Soto m ov ed to the back seat , and M.G. cli mbed into the f ro nt pa ss eng er seat

. M. G. testi fied th at t his w as the first ti me she had ev er met S oto a nd th at he app eare d “old,” “big,” and “smelled like alcoh ol.” Altho ugh M.G. tho ught tha t J.H. w ould 2 tak e her di re ctl y to I.G .’ s apar

tment, he drov e to a c onv eni ence sto re , w here Sot o boug htLat er t est i m ony r ev eal ed t hat t he h ouse was possi bl y l ocat ed i n Edi nbur g. 3 M .G

. h a d t e l e p h o n e d I. G . s e v e r a l tim e s th a t n ig h t t o le t h im k n o w th a t s h e w a s g o in g to h is 4 a p a rtm e n t. 3 ciga re ttes ; t he tr io then “w ent c ru is ing around.” M .G. tes ti fied th at s he “ felt s cared” becau se J.H . w as not dri v ing to I.G .’ s apartment. M. G. tol d J.H . and Soto thatsh e w anted to g o to I.G .’ s apar

tment, but Soto re spond ed, “G et the fuck out of he re . W e are g oin g to the island.” M. G. tes ti fied th at J .H . drov e to a g re en and blu e hous e i n W esl aco becau se he and Soto w anted to pi ck

up a g re en Mu sta ng . After ar ri v ing at the house , M. G. tol d J .H . t hat 3 if he did not take her to I.G.’s hom e, I.G . w ould call the po lice. M .G. te stif ied th at So to to ld 4 her he w as not g oin g to tak e her home un ti l he c oul d “ touc h” her

. Soto tol d J .H . t o g et ou t of the Jeep. J.H . compli ed and saton a w hit e pi cni c t abl e out si de of the g re en and blu e house

. M. G. a n d S o to mov ed to the back of the J eep, in the a re a behi nd th e bac ks eat. M. G

. t e s t if ie d t h a tS o t o t o o ko f f h is p a n t s , p u ll e d d o wn h is b o xe rs , a n d t o ld h e r t o re m o ve her pant s a nd unde rw ear . M. G. tes ti fied th at S oto t ouche d her breast s u nder neath her clot hes. M. G. re fused to kis s S o to or t o u ch hi s “t h in g.” M. G. id e n ti f ie d he r “th in g” as he r vagin a an d So to ’s “t h in g” as his peni s. M. G. tes ti fied that Soto mov ed his hand “front a nd bac k” on h is “ thi ng .” M .G. lai d bac k a n d S o to go t o n t op of her and attempt ed to “ put h is thi ng i nsi de [h er] t hin g .” M. G. sta ted t hat S oto’ s “ thi ng ” w as “h ard” and that Soto’ s “t hin g ” touc hed her “ thi ng ” and “k ind of” w ent i nsi de. M.G

. a lso t e stified that Soto “p ut[ ] hi s fin g ers i nsi de [h er] t hin g .” M. G. sta ted t hat i t “ hur

t” w hen Soto’ s “t hin g ” and fing ers touc hed her “ thi ng ” and t hat s he tr ied pus hin g hi m aw ay . M. G. tes ti fied th at t he enc ounter l ast ed te n to fifteen minu tes

. After itended, M .G. and Soto dress ed, a n d S o to cal led J. H. bac k t o the Je ep. W hen J .H . retur ned, M. G. cal led I. G. from J. H. ’s phone and J.H . t old I. G. that he and Soto4

w oul d drop M .G. off

at the H EB g ro cer

y st ore i n San Juan. B. I.G.’ s Testimony I.G . t est ified thatat approx imat ely 6:00 a.m. on J uly

7, 2007, he and tw o fri ends ar ri v ed atthe San J uan H EB. I. G. saw M .G. standi ng in the parki ng lot; I.G . t est ified that M. G. loo ked “n er

v ous or sc ared.” I .G. tol d M .G. to get insi de hi s v ehi cl e, an d as ked, “W here are the g uy s?” M. G. p oin ted t o a w hit e J eep par ked a few sp aces aw ay . I.G

. grabb ed a stick and be gan hitting the Je ep. Th e Jee p drove aw ay. I.G. jum ped into his
v ehi cl e and follo w ed the Jeep as he cal led the pol ic e. The Jeep ran ou t o f gas and sto pped un der

a near by

ex press w ay . J.H . and Soto jumped outof the J eep and ran to a nea rbyrecreation al v ehicle p ark. I.G. and h is f riends pursu ed J.H. and Soto on footuntil pol ic e ar ri v ed and apprehended J.H . and Sot o for publ ici ntox ic ati on. I.G . t est ified thathe a nd M .G. w ere tak en to the Phar r pol ic e sta ti on and q uest ion ed. At t he s tati on, M .G. tol d I. G. and t he pol ic e tha t s he had been se x ual ly as saul ted i n the Jeep. C. Additional Testimony Hidalgo Count y

Sherif f ’s In v estigator Raul Cantu testif ied th at M.G. an d I.G. w ere brou ght to his of

f ice aroun d 11: 00 a.m. or 11: 30 a.m. on Ju ly 7, 200 7. Cantu took M.G.’s state me nt an d test if ied th at M.G. told him thatSoto had used his fin gers to pene trate her. Investigator Cantu ref erred M.G. to the McAllen Med ical Ce nte r for co llection of ev iden ce of sex ual as saul t. Lorenz a Gue rrero, a sex ual as saul t nurse ex aminer , testi fied that she c onduc ted a n examina tion o f M.G. arou nd 5:00 p.m . on July 7, 2007 . Guerrero test if ied th at M.G. to ld her tha t the alleged assau lt had occurred aro und 5:00 a.m . tha t s a m e d ay. Gue rrero’s examina tion revealed that M.G. w as no t f ully physically

develope d an d tha t redne ss5

extended from M .G. ’s v ag ina l area to her anus. Guer re ro tes ti fied th at al thoug h the re w as no trauma to M. G.’ s h y men, i t w as poss ibl e tha t a peni s coul d hav e ent ered M .G. ’s v ag ina l ar ea w it hout caus ing trauma. Guer re ro sta ted that M. G. tes ted p osi ti v e for Chl amy dia , a sex ual ly transmi tted dis ease. Alejan dro Madrigal, Jr., a fo rensic scientist wi th th e T exas De p a rt m e n t of Public Safety C ri me Lab i n M cA lle n , te st ified thatv ag ina l and ana l sw abs obtai ned from M. G. cont ain ed a mixture of M .G. ’s D NA and the D NA

of an unk now n person. M adr ig al tes ti fied tha t testin g rev eale d tha t Sot o could not be ex clude d as a cont ributo r to the foreign DNA found in t h e s w a b s . M a d r i g a l fu rt h e r t e s t i fi e d t h a tt h e s t a t i s t i c s fro m t h e a n a l sw ab re v eal ed, t o a reason abl e deg re e o f s cie n ti fic c ertai nty , t hat S oto w as the s our ce of the forei g n D NA

. After the S tate re ste d, no w it ness es w ere c a lle d by the defense. The j ur

y found Sot o guilty

of agg rav ate d sexual assau lt of a child by causin g his sexual org an to conta ct M.G.’s sexual org an (cou nt on e), aggravated se x ual assa ult of a c h il d bycausing his sex ual org an to penet ra te M .G. ’s sex ual org an ( counttw o) , ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a child by causing his finger to pene trate M.G.’s sex ual organ (coun t three ), and ind ecen cy w it h a c hil d by

co ntac t byhav ing se x ual co ntac t w it h M .G. ’s se x ual org an ( countfour)

. The jury assesse d pu n is h m e n ta t seventy y ears’ imp risonm entand a $10 ,00 0 f ine on each countof ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d and fifty y ears’ impr is onment and a $10,000 f ine for the o f

fense of indece ncy w ith a child by con tact, t o be serv ed concu rrently. Th is appeal ens ued. II. S U FFI C I ENC Y OF TH E E V I DE NCE In hi s s econd and thi rd i ss ues, Sot o c ontends thatthe ev ide nce i s le gally and factu ally insuf f icient t o s u p port his con v iction for sexual assault of a child by causin g his6

fing er to penetrate t he s ex ual org an of M .G. A . St and ard s o f Rev iew an d A pp licab le L aw In review ing a le gal suf f iciency challen ge, w e v iew the evidence in the light most fav orabl e to the v erdict and dete rmi ne w hether a rati onal tr ier

of fact coul d hav e found the ess enti al ele ments of a cr ime bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S.W .3d 9 , 1 3 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 , 318 -19 (197 9)); Es ca mill a v . St ate , 1 4 3 S

. W

. 3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 7 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 4 )

. T h e t r i e r o f fa c ti s t he s o le ju d ge o f

t h e fa c t s , t h e cr e d ib il it y o f t h e wit n e s s e s , a n d t h e we ig h t gi ve n t o t e s t im o n y. 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 148 , 151 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14 th D ist.] 200 0, pet. ref ’d). A jury ’s v erdict w ill be u phe ld “u nle ss a rati onal factfinder musthav e had re asona ble doubtas to any es sent ial el ement.” L a s te r v . Sta te , 275 S.W .3d 5 12, 5 17 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2009)

. W e resol v e any inc onsi ste nci es in the e v ide nce in fav or of the j udg ment. Cur

ry v. Sta te , 30 S.W .3d 3 94, 406 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000)

. In c onduc ti ng a factual suff ic ien cy rev iew , w e rev iew

the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht to de ter mine w hether

the ev ide nce is so w eak that the jur y ’s v erdict s eems c lea rl y w ro ng and man ifestly unju st or the jury’ s v erdict is against the great w eight and prepo nde rance of the ev ide nce. Gr

otti v. Sta te , 273 S.W .3 d 2 7 3 , 2 83 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ( ci ti ng W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 415 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2006) ). W e w il l not rev erse the jur y ’s v erdict unl ess w e c an s ay w it h s o m e o bjecti v e bas is i n the record tha t t he g re at
w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce cont ra dic ts the v erdict. W ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 41 7. Both leg al and factual suffici ency are measured by the ele ments of the offense as defined by a hy pothet ic all y cor re ct jur y ch arg e. S ee Curry , 30 S.W .3d a t 404 ; Adi v. Sta te , 94 S. W .3d 124 , 131 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 2, pe t. ref ’d).7

A pers o n co mmits ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d i f he in tenti onal ly or know ing ly

ca uses the penetration of the a nus or se x ual org an of a c hil d y oung er than fourteen y ears o f age by any means . See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22. 021 (a)(1)(B)( i). Penetrati on may

be p ro v ed by

ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce, and there i s n o req uirement t hat th e ch il d v ic ti m be abl e to tes ti fy as to pe netrati on. Kar nes v. State , 8 7 3 S

. W

. 2 d 9 2, 96 (T e x. Ap p .– Da lla s 1 9 9 4 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Ver non v. State , 84 1 S. W .2 d 40 7, 4 09 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 199 2)). M oreo v er, the slig hte st pen etrat ion is suf f icient to uph old a conviction if it is prov en bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Sher ber t v . St ate , 53 1 S. W .2 d 63 6, 6 37 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1976)

. Inten t ca n be infer re d from t he ac ts, w ords, and condu ct of the ac cus ed. DeL eon v

. St ate , 7 7 S. W .3 d 30 0 , 3 1 2 (T e x. Ap p .–Au st in 2 0 0 1 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g Her nandez
v. State , 8 1 9 S .W .2 d 806, 810 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1991) ; Due s v . St ate , 634 S.W .2d 3 04, 306 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 82)). B. A nal ysis Soto arg ues that the e v ide nce is i nsuffici ent t o s uppor t his co nv ic ti on bec ause M. G. did not re v eal , ei ther

duri ng her sex ual assaul t ex aminat ion at McAl len M edi cal C enter or dur ing a l ater

i nter v iew at a c hil d adv ocacy

center , that S oto u sed his fing er to penetrate her sexual organ. Add itiona lly , Sot o argues tha t the re is no physi cal evidence to supp ort his co nv ic ti on. At t ri al, M .G. identi fied Sot o’s “ thi ng ” as his peni s, and her “ thi ng ” as her

v ag ina

. M.G. the n test if ied du ring direct examin ation as follows: Q. [Sta te] And beside s his thing going inside your thing, did an ything else

happen? D id he do anythi ng el se to y ou? A. [ M. G.] W ell , he w as fing er ing —he w as fing er ing me. Q. And w hat d o y ou mean by “ fing er ing ” y ou?8

A. W e ll, he w a s p u tt in g his f in ger s in sid e m y thi n g. M .G. prov ide d s imi lar

tes ti mony

dur ing cross -e x aminat ion : Q. [D efense C ounse l] Somethi ng happen e d in th e b ack of that car or the J eep for 10 to 15 minut es. W hat w as itthat happened? W hat h appened?

. . . . A. [M.G.] W ell, for 10 to 15 m in u t e s . W e ll , he was just try ing to— putti ng hi s fin g ers i nsi de my thi ng, g ra bbi ng his thi ng , putti ng —tr y ing to put his thi ng in sid e m y thi n g. The tes ti mony

of a c hil d v ic ti m al one i s s uff ic ien t t o s upport a co nv ic ti on for a g g ra v a t e d s e x u a l a s s aul t. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 38 .07 (Vernon 200 5); Gar ci a v . St ate , 563 S.W .2d 9 25, 9 28 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1978) ; Soto v. State , 267 S.W .3d 327, 332 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2008, no p et.) ; Ketchumv. St ate , 199 S.W .3d 5 81, 5 90 ( Te x . A p p . – C o r p u s C h r i s t i 2 0 0 6 , p e t

. re f’ d )

. W i d e l a t i t u d e i s g i v e n t o t h e t e s t i mo n y o f a chi ld v ic ti m of sex ual abus e. Soto , 267 S.W .2d a t 332

. “The v ic ti m’s des cr ipt ion of w hat happened to he r need no t be preci se, and she is not ex pect ed to ex press h e rse lf at the sam e level of so phistica tion a s an ad ult.” Id. The ju ry i s respon si ble for j udg ing the credi bil ity of the w it ness es, and i t is f re e to bel iev e or di sbel iev e any por ti on of a w it ness ’s tes ti mony . Cai n v . St ate , 958 S. W .2d 4 04, 408- 09 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1997) ; Or tega v. State , 207 S.W .3d 9 11, 9 20 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2 0 0 6 , n o pet .)

. After re v iew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the
v erdict, we conclude thata rationa l tri e r o f f act cou ld have foun d be y ond a reason able doubt that Soto caus ed hi s fin g er to penetrate M. G. ’s se x ual org an. See Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 1 3 ; see als o Gom ez v. Sta te , N o. 13 -0 8- 00157- CR , 200 9 W L 29142 62, a t * 5 (Tex

. A p p . – C o r p u s C h r i s t i A u g . 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t

. h

. ) ( me m. o p . , n o t d e s i g n a t e d for9

pub lication) (conclu ding thatev iden ce w as legally su f f icient to supp ort app ellant ’s conv ic ti on of ag g ra v ated ass aul t of a c hil d w here c hil d v ic ti m tes ti f ie d t h a t appell ant touc hed her

on t he “ outs ide ” of her sex ual org an and lat er tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t t ouche d “i n s id e ” h e r s e xu a l o rg a n ). Fu rt h e rm o re , vie win g t h e e vid e n c e in a n e u t ra l l ig h t , we conc lud e tha t t he ev ide nce is not so w eak that the j ur y ’s v erdict s eems c lea rl y w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ustand that the j ur y ’s v erdict i s n ot ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d pr eponderance of the ev ide nce. S ee Gr otti , 2 7 3 S. W .3d a t 283 ; see als o Gom ez , 200 9 W L 291 4 2 6 2 , a t * 5

. A c c o rd i n g l y , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i s fa c t u a l l y s u ffi c i e n t t o suppo rtSot o’s co nv ic ti on. Soto’ s s econd and thi rd i ss ues are ov er ru led

. III . D OU B LE J E OP A RDY In h is f irst is sue, Sot o c ontends thatco unts one, tw o, an d four v iol ate t he cons ti tuti onal prohi bit ion ag ain st doubl e j eopardy

. Spec ific all y , Soto arg ues that countone (a g g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d by ca usi ng hi s s ex ual org an to cont act M. G.’ s s ex ual org an) and countfour (i ndece ncy w it h a c hil d by

co ntac t by

h a ving s ex ual co ntac t w it h M.G.’s sexual organ) are lesser include d of fense s of

coun t tw o (agg rav ate d sexual assau lt of a chi ld by

ca usi ng hi s s ex ual org an to penet ra te M .G. ’s se x ual org an) bec ause all three coun ts arise f rom th e sam e crimina l episod e. Altho ugh the Sta t e d is a gr ees wi th So to’s “c ri minal epi sode” arg ument, the State conc edes thatthere w as a doubl e j eopardy v iol ati on and t hat S oto’ s c onv ic ti ons on c ount one and four are subsu med into count s tw o and three, re spec ti v ely

. A . Pres erv ation Sot o failed to raise any double jeopa rdyobject ions attrial; how ever, a doub le jeo pardy cl aim maybe rai sed for the f irst ti me on appeal w hen t he undi sput ed facts sh ow that a doubl e j e o p a rd y vio latio n i s c lea rl y apparent o n the face of the re cord and w hen10

e n f or cementof the u sual r ule s o f proc edural default ser v e no leg it imat e s tate int erest

. Gonz ale z v. Sta te , 8 S.W .3d 6 40, 6 43 ( Tex . Cr im. App. 2000)

. In the presentca se, Sot o w as tr ied on t hree c ounts of ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t and one co unt o f indec ency w it h a c hil d i n the sa me proceed ing

. Therefore, t he tr ial co urt k new or shoul d hav e know n of a pot enti al doubl e j eopardy v iol ati on. Saldana v

. St ate , 2 8 7 S

. W

. 3 d 4 3 , 5 6 -5 7 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2008, pet. ref’d)

. Mo re ov er , no leg it imat e state int erestw il l be s er v ed by enforc ement of the us ual r ule s o f proce dural default becau se ev en i f w e find that a doub le j e o p a rd y vi ola ti on oc cur re d, a re tr ial w il l not b e req uired. Id. (notin g tha t if court conc lud ed th at de fendant receiv ed mul ti ple co nv ic ti ons for th e s ame offense, the “conviction w ould m erely be reforme d to de lete th e du plicate d pu nishm ent ”). W e the refore re v iew the re cord to deter mine if a do ubl e j eopardy v iol ati on oc cur re d. B. A nal ysis T he Dou ble Jeo pard y

Clause of

the U n it ed St ate s Constitu tion p rotect s against mult ipl e puni shment s for the same off ense. See U. S. C ON ST . amend. V; Brow n v. Ohio , 432 U .S. 161, 164 ( 1977) ; Littr ell v. Sta te , 271 S.W .3d 273 , 275 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 8). In order to prev ail on a doubl e j eopa rd y c lai m, the record mustdemons trate t hat t he off enses at is sue neces sar il y arose from “ one ac t w hic h could be subj ectto tw o di ff erent i nt er pret at i on s .” Och oa v . St ate , 982 S.W .2d 9 04, 9 08 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1998)

. “E v en w hen tw o ac ts ar e c ommitt ed i n c los e tempo ral prox imi ty , t he ac ts sti ll may be s eparate and distinct for dou ble jeo pard y purpo ses.” Soto , 267 S.W .3d a t 343

. Und er se cti on 22. 021 of the Tex as Penal C ode, a person comm it s the off ense of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t i f he in tenti onal ly or kn ow ing ly

ca uses the penetration o f the sex ual org an of a chi ld by anym eans, or causes the sex ual org an of a c hil d to cont actor penetrate t he s ex ual org an of anoth er person, i ncl udi ng hi msel f. See T EX . P EN AL C ODE11

A NN . § 22.021( a) (1 )( B) (i ), ( a) (1 )( B) (i ii ). G enerally , e a ch alle g ati on unde r sec ti on 22. 021 cons ti tutes a s eparate o ff ense. See Vick v. Sta te , 991 S.W .2d 8 30, 8 33 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999)

. How ev er , “ [s] ex ual co ntac t or ex posure tha t oc curs i n the co urse of an actof sex ual pen etrat ion is subsum ed in th e com plete d act. ” Soto , 26 7 S. W .3 d at34 3 (cit in g Patter son v. State , 152 S.W .3d 8 8 , 9 2 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2004) ). Therefore, “[ a] c onv ic ti on for both the act of pe netrati on and for the sex ual cont act or ex posure inc ide nt to th e penetra ti on const itute s dou ble jeo pard y .” Id. In t he presentca se, the jur y co nv ic ted S oto o f tw o s eparate o ff enses of ag g ra v ated ass aul t of a chi ld by

penetra ti on: (1 ) caus ing his sex ual org an to penetrat e M.G. ’s se x ual org an ( counttw o ); a nd ( 2) ca usi ng hi s fin g er to penetrate M .G. ’s se x ual org an ( count th r e e )

. A l t h o u g h t h e s e o ffe n s e s o c c u r r e d o n t h e s a me o c c a s i o n , S o t o ’ s p e n etr ati on of M. G.’ s s ex ual org an w it h hi s p eni s w as a s eparate and dis ti nct act from usi ng hi s fin g er to p e n e tr a te M .G. ’s se x ual org an. See B otten field v. Sta te , 77 S. W .3d 349 , 358 (Tex. App.–W aco 2002, pet. re f’d) ( hol din g thattouc hin g v ic ti m’s se x ual org an w it h fing er w as s e p a ra t e a n d d i s t i n c tfro m c o n t a c t i n g h e r s e x u a l o rg a n w i t h h i s p e n i s , e v e n w hen commi tted dur ing the same occ ur re nce)

. Addi ti onal ly , the jur y conv ic ted Soto of tw o ac ts of conta ct: (1) ag gravated assau lt o f a ch ild bycausing his sex ual organ to conta ct M.G.’s sex ual org an (c o u n t o n e) ; and ( 2) i ndece ncy w it h a c hil d by

co ntac t ( countfour)

. The re cord demons trates thatthe act s o f penetrati on w ere based on the s ame co nductas the act s o f contac t. M .G. tes ti fied th at w hil e i n the back of the w hit e Jeep, Soto g ot on top of her and attempt ed to “put his thing insi de [her] thing .” She als o testi fied that Soto “pu t[ ] his fing ers i nsi de [h er] t hin g .” Be caus e a conv ic ti on for both the c omplet ed ac t of p e n e t ra t io n a n d fo r s e xu a l c o n t a c tin c id e n tt o t h e p e n e t ra t io n co n s t it u t e s d o u b le je o p a rd y, w e hold t hat S oto w as puni shed four t imes for tw o s eparate o ff enses . See Saldana , 28712

S.W .3d a t 58. W e susta in Soto’ s f irst is sue and del ete t he c onv icti ons on c ounts one and four. See i

d. IV. C H A R GE E RROR In i ss ues four, f ive, a n d six , So to c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt s ubmit ted a n er ro neous jur

y charg e at the g uil t/i nnoce nce sta g e of tri al. Spec ific all y , Soto c ontends that the t ri al cour

t c ommented o n t h e w eig ht of the ev ide nce by att achi ng a “ puni shment ”
v erdic t form to c ount one. The St ate c ontends thatthe proper ch arg e w as submi tted to t he jur y and the p uni shmentv erdict form w as merel y mis pla ced in the c ler k’ s record. The cl er k’ s re cord cont ain s s eparate g uil t/i nnoce nce and pun is hment c harg es that
w ere s ub mi tt ed to th e j ur y . C ou nt on e’ s g ui l t/ i nn oc en c e c ha rg e i s fol l ow ed by th e “ F or ms of Verdict” page, which prov ides: W e, t he J ur

y , find the Defendant , SAU L MI RA MO NTES SOTO, GU ILTYof the o ff ense of AGGRAVATED SEX UA L ASS AU LT OF A C HI LD as charg ed in the i ndi ctment

. / s i g n e d / PRE SID IN G J UR OR OR W e, t he J ur

y find t he D efend a n t, SAU L M IRAM ON TES SOTO, N OT GU IL T Y. The next pag e i s a v erdict form for the p u n ish m e n t pha se enti tl ed “ Verdict F or m No . 2. ” T he co urt’s charge for the p u n is h me nt ph ase a ppe ars later in the record and is im m e d ia te ly fo llo wed by a p a ge e n ti tl e d “Ve rd ictF o rm N o . On e .” T h e pu n ish m e n t c h a rge for c ount one i s mi ss ing Verdi ct For m No. 2. Rev iew of the re por

ter ’s record rev eal s t hat after rea din g count one’s g uil t/i nnoce nce charg e to the j ur y , t he tr ial co urt read onl y from the p ag e ent it led “ For ms of Verdict” before cont inu ing on t o c ount tw o of the charg e.13

W e con clude thataltho ugh the pun ishm ent v erdict form is misp laced in the clerk’s re cord, a re v iew

of the e nti re record rev eal s t hat t he tr ial co urt di d not sub mit an er ro neous c h a rg e t o t h e ju ry. Mo re o ve r, “[ t ] o t h e e xt e n tt h a tt h e fo rm o f t h e ve rd i c tm a yh a ve cons ti tuted a c omment on the w eig ht of the ev ide nce . . . a fail ure to obj ectto an al leg ed comment on th e w eig ht of the ev ide nce als o w aiv es any rev iew of the a ll e ged er ro r. ” Con tr er as v. State , 54 S.W .3d 8 98, 9 06 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti , no pet.)

. H ere, S oto did not obj ectto the c harg e on thi s b asi s. Accordin g ly , Soto’ s four th, fifth, and si xth i ss ues ar e ov er ru led

. V. C ONCL US I ON Beca use w e c oncl ude t hat t he c onv ic ti ons under co unts one and four

v iolat e the Dou ble Jeopa rd y

C lau se of the F ifth A mendment, w e v acat e the co nv ic ti ons on c ounts one and four of the i ndi ctmentand modify the tr ial cour

t’ s jud g ment of c onv ic ti on to reflectour deci si on. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 3.2( b)

. W e aff ir m as modified

.

_________

_________

______ 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 ered and filed thi s t he 22nd day

of Oct ober , 200 9.