See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 21
. 11 , 22
. 02 1 (V ern on S up p. 20 09 ). 1 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0036 0-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 C OR P U S C H R I S T I -E D I N B U R G JU LIA N M A LD ONA DO, A pp ellan t, v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee. On ap pe al f rom th e 3 6th D istrict Co urt of San Pa tricio C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es Y añ eza n d G arza

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z A j ur y co nv icted a ppel lan t, Jul ian M ald onado, of eig ht c ounts of agg ra v ated sex ual ass aul t of a c hil d and one c ount of indec ency w it h a c hil d. Ap p e lla n t was se ntenc ed to

1 tw enty - fi v e y ea rs ' c on fi ne me ntfor e ac h offen s e to r un c on c ur ren tl y . B y e i g hti s s ue s,In th e i n d ic tm e n t e a c h c h il d i s re f e r r e d to a s M .M . H o w e v e r , f o rc la r ityw e w il l in c lu d e th e c h il d r e n 's 2 ages when we r ef ert o ea ch chi l d— M
. M
. 7 an d M
. M
. 5. 2 app ellantconte nds: ( 1) thathis trial cou nsel provided inef fective a ssistance ; (2) there is a "m ate rial fata l variance" b etween the a llegations in the in dictm enta nd the proof at trial; an d ( 3)t he e v i de nc e i s l eg al l y a nd factu al l y

i ns uffi c i en t ( i s s ue s 3 - 8)
. W e affi r m. I. T H E E V I DE NCE At t ri al, Li sa Ma ri e M oli na, a ppel lan t' s d aug hter , t est ified on b ehal f of the Stat e tha t she has four biol og ic al chi ldren, inc lud ing two daug hters, A.M ., w ho was eig ht, and S. M. , w ho was fiv e, an d two ni eces of w hom sh e has cus tody , M. M. , w ho w as sev en ( "M. M. 7") and M .M ., w ho was fiv e ("M .M .5")
. Lis a testi fied that in 2006, appell ant beg an li v ing w it h 2 her famil y at thei r home i n Taft, Tex as. Li sa sta ted t hat o n J une 4, 2007, sh e had a conv ersat ion w it h M .M .5 an d M .M .7 ab out a ppel lan t, thei r g ra ndfather . Acc ordin g to Lis a, s he was i n he r

b ed roo m w i th M. M .5 w he n M .M .7 g es tu red for M. M .5 to l ea v e th e be droo m. Lisa s t a t e d t h a t she aske d the children w here they were going, and M.M.5 "sa id ['] she [M.M.7] just pro bab ly wan ts to tou ch m e ag ain .[' ]" Lis a s tated sh e bec ame co ncer ned, and so she a sked M.M.5 to explain w hatshe m ean t, an d M.M.5 said, while touchin g her "b ack p a rt , " " [ '] yeah, sh e [M .M .7] wa nt totouch m e he re .[' ]" Lis a the n as ked M. M. 7 w hat was going on, and ev ent ually M.M.7 told Lisa tha t app ellant"w ould set her on top of him w hile she w as naked and put her— his pri v ate partin her pri v ate partin the f ro nt and in the bac k." Lis a al so sta ted t hat M .M .7 told her that appell ant put his pri v ate partin M.M .7' s mouth and tha t on on e occa sion, a ppe llant "p eed in [M.M.7's] mo uth but th at it w asn'tye ll ow, tha t it w as w hite. " M.M.7 told Lisa tha t "a f ter [ap pellan t] f inishes w ith her the n he also got [Lisa's] old estdaug hter

[A. M. ] .
. . . So she sai d after he finis hes w it h me, [M ]om, h e g ets [A. M. ]L i s a te s ti fie d th a t M .M .5 a n d M .M .7 c a l l h e r "m o m ." 3 3 He does the s ame to her ." 3 After M. M. 7 told Lis a aboutthos e i nci dence s, Lis a c all ed her hus band w ho was on a fis hin g tr ip w it h the other chi ldren and ask ed him to br ing them home. Lis a tes ti fied th at w hen they arri v ed, she aske d A.M. if t here was " anything" she w ant ed to tell Lisa, and A.M. said, " No." M .M.7 the n told A.M., "['] you don' t hav e to li e no m or e. You don'

t hav e to be scared. I already to ld her eve rythingthat [app ellant

] has be en doingto us. [' ]" Ac cordin g to Lisa , A.M. starte d cry ing and told her tha t app ellant puthis priv ate part in her priv ate part and i n her

mouth. A. M. st ated that appel lan t t old her not to t ell any o n e a n d when s he woul d tel l him to s top, appel lan t woul d c ov er her mouth. Lis a testif ie d thatsh e tal ked to M .M .5 ab out w hat a ppel lan t di d to her and that M.M.5 told her tha t app ellant put his priv ate part in her back part and i n her m out h. Lisa sta ted t hat M .M .5 t old her t hat a ppel lan t "woul d l ay her dow n on the b ed and spread her leg s o pen and l ic k h er ." Acc ordin g to Lis a, S .M . told her that appell ant w oul d "touch h er w it h hi s h and and l ic k h er ." Lis a c all ed th e pol ic e. Er nie Sol iz , a deputy

sh er iff, test ified on b ehal f of the Stat e tha t on June 4, 20 07, he went t o Li sa' s resi dence
. W h e n D e puty Sol izar ri v ed atthe re si dence , he w as "direct ed" to a be droom w here he encou ntered Li sa, w ho was cryin g. A .M . and M .M .7 w ere al so in the room cr y ing
. W hen D eputy

Sol izas ked A.M . and M .M .7 w hat h ad happened, "eac h s aid that[app ell ant] . . . had s tuc k h is peni s i n the ir rear end por ti on, w hic h i s t hei r anus, and they both moti oned l ik e thi s ( ind ic ati ng ). " Deputy Sol izst ated that he as ked the g ir ls i f they w ere referr ing to appel lan t' s peni s, w hic h he sai d they cal led "theT he tr i al cour t adm i t t ed t hose docum ent s f r om D r i scol l C hi l dr en' s H ospi t al per t ai ni ng t o m edi cal 4 exam i nat i ons o fM
. M
. 7, M
. M
. 5, and A. M
. per f or m ed on June 4, 2007 by Andel m an as St at e' s Exhi bi t s 1, 2, a n d 3 r e s p e c tiv e ly. 4 thi ng ," and that both g ir ls sai d "y es. " Dep uty Sol iz g av e Lis a a c ase number and tol d her to t ake the chi ldren to Dr is col l Chi ldren's Hos pit al and re q uesta s ex ual as saul t examinat ion ki t. Eliz abe th An delm an, a foren sic nurse examine r w ith Driscoll Child re n's Hospita l, tes ti fied th at s he examined M .M .7, M. M. 5, an d A. M. on J une 4, 2007. An del man tes ti fied that as par

t of her examinat ion of A.M ., M. M. 5, an d M .M .7, she a cqu ire d a h istory for p u rp o s e s of

diagnosis and treatm ent , w here in she do cum ent ed th e children 's "exact words." Ande lma n stat ed th at she did notnote any traum a to M.M.5, M.M.7, or A.M.

4 Andel man st ated she document ed th e foll ow ing from A. M. 's hi sto ry : [appel lan t] ["] ta k

e s u s in toh isro o m an d

clo s e s t h edo o r. He ta k

e s o f f my pan ts and

picks me up . He p uts his m iddle p art in my back .["] Pa ti ent ind ic ates buttby

poin ting . [ "] He does m inefi rs t t hen [M .M .5]. He puts his m idd le in my m outh and [M.M.5's] m outh. He puts his m iddle in my m iddle .["] Pati ent i ndi cat es female s ex ual org an by poi nti ng . [ "] He said for m e to do n't talk to my m omabo ut it .["] Andel man st ated that she acq uired th e follow ing hi sto ry from M .M .5: appel lan t "['] sti ck s his hand inside .[' ] Pati ent indi cat es fem ale sex ual org an bypoi nti ng . [ ' ]He does stuff to us. He holds my legs—leg s ope n an d kisses m e he re .['] Patie nt ind icates fem ale sexual organ bypoint ing. ['] He alway s t ri es to dostuff to al

l of us .[' ]" An d e lm a n tes ti fied she acquired the followi ng history f rom M.M .7: appellan t "['] put his thing in he re .[' ] Pati ent indicat es fem ale sexual o rg an by poin ting. ['] He picks us up and pu ts it in our butt. He tells u s to s u ck

hi s t hin g, too. He sai

d don' t tell any one. He does

it to m e and [A.M .] and [M .M .5.] [' ]"T h e r e is n o th in g in th e r e c o r d d e s c r ib in g w h a t b o d y p a r t A .M . p o in te d to o n th e d o ll. 5 5 M.M.5 testif ied th at ap pellan t had hurt her. According to M.M.5, app ellantput his "middl e" i n her

"mid dle " and "in" her

bac k. M .M . us ed a dol l to i ndi cat e w hat p art o f her bod y she called her "m iddle" and h e r " b ack." M .M.5 stat ed th at w hen app ellantput his "middl e" i n her

"bac k," it

hur t, and i t "[felt] bad." M. M. 7 tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t hur t her w it h his "thi ng ." M. M. 7 s tated thatappel lan t put h is "thi ng " i n her

m outh and in her "middl e." M. M. 7 stated that appel lan t t old her that his "thi ng " tas ted l ik e a pic kl e and that w hen s he ta ste d appel lan t' s "p ic kl e" s he "th re w up" beca use " pee " w entinto he r mou th. Acco rding to M.M.7, app ellantt o ld h e r n o t to tell any one w hat h e was doi ng . The Stat e as ked M. M. 7, "[D] id y our g ra ndpa [ appel lan t] ev er hav e hi s mi ddl e par

t touc h y our

bac k p art here?", a nd M .M .7 repl ied , "Y es. " W hen as ked w hat t hat fel t l ik e, M .M .7 s aid , "Li ke itw as hur ti ng bad. " On c ro ss -e xaminat ion , M.M .7 s tated thatS.M . t old her that sh e was "jus t g oin g to tell the m, thathe on ly

touch ed [her]." M.M.7 reiterate d tha t app ellanthurt he r "bad ." S.M. testif ied th at ap pellan t tou ched her "m iddle" w hen she w as four. A.M . t est ified that appel lan t "hur t" her
. W hen ask ed to s how on a dol l w hat p art of the b ody he h urt, A.M . s tated , "[ t]he front" and "[ o]n t he bac k." The Stat e as ked A.M . t o poin t outon a do ll the part of app ellant 's body that to uche d A.M.'s "f ront pa rt
. " A.M. 5 compl ied and st a te d that he als o puti t i n her mouth. W hen t he St ate a sk ed i f appell ant also pu t it in her f ront pa rt, A .M. re plied, " Yes." W hen a sked if a ppe llant puthis body part in he r ba ckpa rt , A .M
. m o ved h e r h e a d u p a n d d o wn. T h e St a te th e n as ke d , " Did th a t go on the insi de or stay

on the outsi de?", A.M . res ponded, "A li ttl e bi t on the i nsi de" and thatAppel l ant was cha r ged wi t h el ev en co unt s of v ar i ous o ff enses; however , t he St at e ab andon ed co unt 6 s i x of t he i nd i c tm e n t, a n d t he j uryac qu i t t ed ap pe l l an t of co un t el eve n— i nd ec en c yw i t h a ch i l d. T he j ury conv i ct ed a ppel l ant of t he f ol l owi ng: ( 1) coun t one — aggr av at ed se xual assau l t of a chi l d by" i nt ent i onal l yor k nowi ngl ycaus[ i ng] t he p enet r at i on of t he sexual or gan of[ M
. M
. 5] , a chi l d who was t hen and t her e y ounge r t han 14 y ear s of age, and not t he spouse of [ appel l ant ] by t he [ appel l ant ' s] f i nger s . . . . " ; (2) c ount t wo— aggr av at ed assaul t ofa chi l d by " i nt ent i onal l yor knowi ngl ycaus[ i ng] t he m out h of [ appel l ant ] t o con t act t he se xual or gan of[ M
. M
. 5] , a chi l d who was t hen and t her e y ounge r t han 14 y ear s of age, and not t he sp ouse o f[a p p e l l a n t]
. . . ."; (3 ) c o u n t th re e — a g g ra v a te d s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f a c h i l d b y "i n te n ti o n a l l yo r k n o w in g ly caus[ i ng] t he penet r at i on o ft he a nus o f[ M
. M
. 5] , a chi l d who was t hen and t her e y ounge rt han 14 y ear s of age , a n d n o t t h e s p o u s e o f[ a p p e lla n t] b y t h e [ a p p e lla n t's ] s e x u a l o r g a n . . . . " ; ( 4 ) c o u n t f o u r— in d e c e n c y w ith a c h ild "w i th th e i n te n t to a ro u s e o r g ra ti fy th e s e x u a l d e s i re o f [a p p e l l a n t] b yto u c h i n g th e s e x u a l o rg a n o f [M .M .7 ], a chi l d y ounge rt han sev ent een ( 17) y ear s and nott he spouse oft he d ef endan t " ; ( 5) coun t f i v e— aggr av at ed sexual assau l t of a chi l d by " i nt ent i onal l y or k nowi ngl y caus[ i ng] t he sexual or gan of [ appel l ant ] t o con t act t he anus of[ M
. M
. 7] who was t hen and t her e y ounge rt han 14 y ear s of age , and nott he sp ouse of [ a p p e lla n t]
. . . ." ; ( 6 ) c o u n t s e v e n — a g g r a v a te d s e x u a l a s s a u lt o fa c h ild b y "in te n tio n a lly a n d k n o w in g ly c au s [ i ng] t he sexual or gan of [ appel l ant ] t o cont act t he sexual or gan of [ M
. M
. 7] , who was t hen an d t he re y ounge rt han 14 y ear s of age , and n ot t he spou se of [ appel l ant ]
. . . . " ; ( 7) coun t ei ght
— aggr av at ed se xual assaul t of a chi l d by" i nt ent i onal l yand knowi ngl ycaus[ i ng] t he se xual or gan of[ appel l ant ] t o con t act t he a nus o f A .M ., a c h i l d w h o w a s th e n a n d th e re y o u n g e r th a n 1 4 y e a rs o f a g e , a n d n o t th e s p o u s e o f [ a p p e l l a n t]
. . . ."; ( 8) coun t ni ne— aggr av at ed se xual assau l t of a chi l d by " i nt ent i onal l yorknowi ngl ycaus[ i ng] t he p enet r at i on oft he m out h of

A. M
. , a chi l d who was t hen and t her e y ounge rt han 14 y ear s of age , and nott he sp ouse of [ appel l ant ]
. . . . " ; ( 9) coun t t en— aggr av at ed sexual assau l t of a chi l d by" i nt ent i onal l yorknowi ngl ycaus[ i ng] t he se xual or gan of [ appel l ant ] t o con t act t he se xual or gan ofA. M
. , a chi l d who was t hen and t her e y ounge r th a n 1 4 y e a rs o f a g e , a n d n o t t h e s p o u s e o f [a p p e l l a n t]
. . . ." 6 it"hur ted." The St ate a sk ed, "N o w, yo u s a id t hat your g ra ndpa pu t hi s front p art i n your mouth. Y ou remember that? " A. M. mov ed her head up and dow n and then sta ted t hat "[ i] t jus t feltnas ty " and t hat s he feltl ik e throw ing up. A.M . t est ified thatappel lan t t old her not to te ll a n yon e w h a t h e wa s d o in g. 6 II. I N EFFEC TI VE A

SS I ST A NCE OF C OU N SEL B y h is f irs tis s u e , a p p e ll a n tco n t e n d s t h a th is t ri a l c o u n s e l re n d e re d i n e f fe c t ive assistan ce. S pecif ically , app ellanta lleges, withoutcita tion to auth ority , tha t Depu ty Soliz's and An del man's tes ti mony co nsi ste d of "in admis si ble hears ay ev ide nce" to w hic h tr ial couns el faile d to obj ect
. The Stat e respon d s that becau se the c omplai ned- of test imony fal ls wi t h in exception s to the hea rsayrule, trial counse l's fa ilure to object w as arguablySee T EX . R. E V ID . 803 ( " T he f ol l owi ng a r e no t excl uded byt he h ear say ru l e, e ven t hough t he 7 decl ar ant i s av ai l abl e as a wi t ness: . . . ( 2) Exci t ed Ut t er ance. — A st at em ent r el at i ng t o a st ar t l i ng e v ent or condi t i on m ade whi l e t he d ecl ar ant w as u nd er t he st r ess of exci t em ent cause d byt he e v ent or condi t i on. . . . ( 4) St at em ent s f orPur poses ofM edi cal D i agnosi s orT r eat m ent
. — St at em ent s m ade f or pur poses ofm edi cal di agnosi s ort r eat m ent and descr i bi ng m edi cal hi st or y , orpastorpr e sent sy m pt om s, pai n, orsensa t i ons, ort he i ncept i on o rgen er al char ac t er oft he ca use o rext er nal sour ce t her eofi nsof aras rea s on ab l ype rt i ne nt t o d i ag no s i s or t rea t m en t " ).

S e e G o o d s p e e dv . S ta te , 187 S. W
. 3d 3 90, 392 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 5) ( ci t i ng Str ic k la n d v. 8 W ashi ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 )) ; Th o m p s o n v . S ta te , 9 S
. W
. 3d 80 8, 81 2 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 99 ). Thom pson , 9 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 2 ; see Str ickland , 466 U
. S. at687
. 9 Thom pson , 9 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 2 ; see Str ickland , 466 U
. S. at694
. 10 Thom pson , 9 S. W
. 3d a t 813
. 11 I d. 12 7 b a s e d o n a re a s o n a b le t ri a l s t ra t e gy. 7 A . St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw Ine f fective assistance of

coun sel claims are e v alua ted und er the two-part test arti cul ated by

the Uni ted S tates Supreme C our t in Str ickl and v . Washi ngton
. The

8 Str ickl and tes t re q uires the appel lan t to show that couns el' s per formance w as defici ent, or in other words, thatco unsel 's as si sta nce fell bel ow an o bje cti v e s tandard of reaso nab lene ss. Assumin g a ppe llant ha s dem onst rated def icient assista nce, he m ust 9 th e n sho w

thatthere is a reaso nab le proba bility that , butfor coun sel's errors, the result wo u ld h a ve b e e n d if

fe re n t
. In d e t e rm in in g t h e va li d ity o f a p p e ll a n t ' s cl a im o f

in e f fe ct ive 10 ass is tanc e of coun sel , "any j udi ci al re v iew

must be hig hly deferent ial to tr ial couns el and av oid the del eter iou s e ffect s o f hinds ig ht." 11 T h e b u rd e n is o n a p p e ll a n tt o p ro ve in e f fe ct ive a s s is t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l b y a preponderance of the ev ide nce. Appell ant mus t ov ercome t he s trong presumpt ion that 12 couns el' s c onduct fell w it hin the w ide rang e of reason abl e professi onal ass is tanc e and t hatSee Str ickland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 9 ; J a y n e s v . S ta te , 2 1 6 S .W .3 d 8 3 9 , 8 5 1 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 13 20 06 , no pe t
. ).

St at e v. Morales , 253 S. W
. 3d 686, 696 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 8) ( " [ U ] nl ess t her e i s a r ecor d suff i ci ent 14 t o d em on s t rat e t ha t co un s el ' s co nd uc t w as no t t he prod uc t of a s t rat eg i c or t ac t i c al de c i s i on , a revi ew i ng co urt s ho ul d p res um e t ha t t ri al co un s el ' s pe rform an c e w as co ns t i t uti on al l yad eq ua t e . . . . " ).

Thom pson , 9 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 3 ; Jaynes , 216 S. W
. 3d a t 851
. 15 B o n e v . S ta te , 7 7 S .W .3 d 8 2 8 , 8 3 5 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); Thom pson , 9 S. W
. 3d a t 814 ( set t i ng 16 out t ha t "i n t he v ast m aj or i t yof cases, t he u ndev el oped r ecor d on di r ect app eal wi l l be i nsuff i ci ent f oran ap pe l l an t t o sa t i s fyt he du al pron gs of Str ickland "); s e e J a c k s o n v . S ta te , 8 7 7 S .W .2 d 7 6 8 , 7 7 1 - 7 2 ( T e x . C r im
. A pp . 19 94 ) ( en ba nc ) (stat i ng t ha t " w e m us t pres um e t ha t co un s el i s be t t er po s i t i on ed t ha n t he ap pe l l ate c ou rt t o j udge t he pr agm at i sm oft he par t i cul arcase, and t hat he m ade al l si gni f i cant deci si ons i n t he e xer ci se of r easona bl e pr of essi onal j udgm ent " and t hat " [ d] ue t o t he l ack ofevi de nc e i n t he r ecor d con cer ni ng t r i al counsel ' s r easons" f ort he a l l eged i neff ect i v eness , the c ou rt was " unabl e t o con cl ude t hat app el l ant ' s t r i al c ou ns el ' s pe rform an c e w as de fi c i en t " ) ( i nterna l qu otat i on s om i t t ed ).

See Str ickland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 9 ; Jaynes , 216 S. W
. 3d a t 851
. 17 Thom pson , 9 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 2 ; see Str ickland , 46 6 U
. S
. at 69 4; s ee al s o T ex . R
. A pp . P
. 38
. 1(i ). 18 8 his acti ons coul d be cons ide re d s ound t ri al strate gy. A rev iew ing co urt w il l not 13 secon d-guess legitimate tactical de cisions ma de b y t r i al cou ns el
. C ou ns el ' se f fectiveness 14 is judged by the tota lity of the rep resen tatio n, no t by isolate d acts or om issions. 15 B. A nal ysis An allegatio n of

in ef fectiveness mu st be f irmly foun ded in t he reco rd, and the reco rd must aff ir mati v ely

demons trate t he al leg ed i nef fe ct iv eness . H ere, t he record i s s il ent

16 re ga rd in g t ri a l c o u n s e l' s re a s o n fo r n o to bje ct in g t o t h e c o m p la in e d -o f t e s t im o n y. T here fore, ap pellan t has no t overcome the strong presu mp tion that cou nsel's con ductfell w it hin the w ide rang e of reason abl e professi onal as si sta nce and t hat h is acti ons coul d be cons ide re d s ound t ri al strateg y . F urther more, appel lan t doe s n ot c ontend w it h proper 17 ci tati on to author ity and a c lea r and c onci se arg ument t hat t here i s a reason abl e probabi li ty that but for

tr ial co unsel 's al leg ed er ro rs , t he re sul t woul d hav e been different. Therefore, 18 a p p e ll a n th a s n o tm e th is b u rd e n t o p ro ve in e f fe ct ive a s s is t a n c e o f

co u n s e l b y aThom pson , 9 S. W
. 3d a t 813
. 19W e n o te th a t a p p e lla n t g e n e r a lly a s s e r ts th a t " [t ]r ia l c o u n s e l's d e f ic ie n t p e r f o r m a n c e , f a llin g w e ll 20 bel ow and [ si c] accep t abl e st andar d t ot al l yund er m i nes t he co nf i dence t hat t he j ur yr eached a pr operand j ust v e r d ic t" ; h o w e v e r , h e d o e s n o t p r o v id e a c le a ra n d c o n c is e a r g u m e n t w ith c ita tio n to a u th o r ity f o rth is a s s e rti o n . T h e re fo re , h e h a s w a i v e d i t. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 38
. 1(i ).

W e no t e t hat ar t i cl e 57
. 02 o ft he T exas Code of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e a l l ow s a v i ct i m of a sexual 21 a s s a u lt to " c h o o s e a p s e u d o n ym t o b e u s e d in s te a d o fth e v ic tim 's n a m e to d e s ig n a te th e v ic tim in a ll p u b lic f i l es an d r ecor ds con cer ni ng t he o ff ense, i ncl udi ng p ol i ce sum m ar yre por t s, pr ess r el eases, and r ecor ds of ju d i c i a l p ro c e e d i n g s ." T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t
. 57. 02( b) (Ver non Supp. 200 9 )
. Ar t i cl e 57
. 02 d ef i nes " p s e u d o n ym " a s "a s e t o fin itia ls o ra f ic tit io u s n a m e c h o s e n b y th e a v ic tim to d e s ig n a te th e v ic tim in a ll p u b lic f i l es an d r ecor ds concer ni ng t he off ense, i ncl udi ng pol i ce sum m ar y r epor t s, pr ess r el eases, and r ecor ds of ju d i c i a l p ro c e e d i n g s ." I d. art
. 57
. 01 (Ve rno n 2 00 6).

G o llih a r v . S ta te , 46 S
. W
. 3d 24 3, 24 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 01 ). 22 I d. at257
. 23 9 preponderance of the ev ide nce. W e ov er ru le appel lan t' s first is sue. 19 20 III . VA R I A N C E I N THE I NDI CT MENT B y h is se c o n d is s u e , a p p e ll a n tc o n t e n d s t h a th e wa s " d e n ie d d u e p ro c e s s o f la w" becau se there w as "a mater ial fatal v ar ian ce between t he al leg ati ons in the i ndi ctmentand t h e p ro o f a tt ri a l. " Sp e c if ic a ll y, a p p e ll a n ta rg u e s t h a t b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e u s e d a p s e u d o n ym for eac h c hil d i n the i ndi ctment—th eir i nit ial s—there "i s n ot a shred of evidence i n the re cord tha t [ the c hil dren w ho te sti fied attrial ] are the sa me person( s)named i n the ind ictment. " 21 "A ' v ar ian ce' oc curs w hen t here i s a di sc re pancy between t h e a lle gati ons in the charging i nstrum entand the pro of at trial." Under the fa tal v ariance doctrine , a v ariance

22 is fatal onl y if i t i s mat er ial and the d efendant's su bst anti al ri g hts hav e been preju dic ed. 23 "W hen rev iew ing su ch a v ar ian ce, w e mustdete rmi ne w hether the ind ictment, as w ri tten, infor med the d e fe n d a n t o f the c harg e ag ain st him suffici entl y to all ow hi m to p re pare an adeq uate defense attr ial , and w hether prosec uti on under the defici entl y drafted i ndi ctmentI d. 24 I d. at247 - 48. 25 S te v e n s v . S ta te , 891 S. W
. 2d 64 9, 6 50 (T ex. C r i m . App. 199 5) ( en b anc) ( quot i ng Pl essinger v. 26 S ta te , 53 6 S
. W
. 2d 38 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 76 )) (i nterna l qu otat i on s om i t t ed ). 10 woul d s ubj ectthe defendant t o the r is k o f being prosec uted lat er for t he same cr ime. " A 24 v ariance is i mm ate rial if it doe s not prejudice a defend ant 's substa ntial rights. "T he o bject 25 of the doctr ine of v ar ian ce between all eg ati ons of an i ndi ctmenti s t o av oid su rp ri se, and for s uch v ar ian ce to be mater ial it must be suc h as to mis lea d the par ty to his preju dic e." 26 Appel lan t as ser

ts that there is n o th in g i n the record es tabl is hin g thatthe chi ldren nam ed in the in dictm entwere t he children who testif ied at trial. How ever, be fore voir dire beg an and in open c our t, the fol low ing co ll oq uy between appel lan t and his defense c ounse l occ ur re d: [Defense Co unse l]: Beca use y ou [ap pellan t] did nota cceptthe ple a bargain

t h e y w e re g o i n g t o re i n d i ctyo u a n d p u ti n yo u r p ri or conv icti on. Do y ou unde rs tand that? [Appel lan t]: He did tel l me that
. [D efense C ounse l] : And the four chi ldren that w e a re tal ki ng about, itw as

[st ated chi ldren's l eg al names]
. And you had adv is ed me thatthose children w ere saying lies. [A p p e lla n t] : W e ll, th e y che ck e d th e m . T h e y fo u n d no th in g. [D efense C ounse l] : Is that cor re ct? [A p p e l l a n t] : I h a v e n ' t d o n e a n yt h i n g . Th e y c h e c k e d t h e m. They

d id n 'tf in d an yth in g. [Defense Coun sel]: No
. W h a tI ' m a s k in g is d o y ou u nde rstand y ou're

saying w hatthe childre n said were li es? [A p p e lla n t] : Yes , t h e y we re lying. Th e y do n 'tha ve a n yth in g.S ee G olliha r , 46 S. W
. 3d a t 257
. 27 S e e G re e n o v . S ta te , 4 6 S .W .3 d 4 0 9 , 4 1 3 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.) 28 ( concl udi ng t hat t he u se of pseudo ny m s i n t he i ndi ct m ent was no t a m at er i al v ar i ance bet ween t he i ndi ct m ent and t he p r oofoff er ed a t t r i al and di d no t ope r at e t o t he appel l ant ' s sur pr i se or pr ej udi ce hi s r i ght s beca use t he v ic tim s w e r e a p p e lla n t's o w n c h ild r e n a n d in h is p r e tr ia l m o tio n s , a p p e lla n t s p e c if ic a lly r e f e r r e d to th e v ic tim s by t he i r l eg al na m es ).

S e e W a s h in g to n v . S ta te , 59 S
. W
. 3d 26 0, 26 3-6 4 (T ex . A pp . –T ex ark an a 2 00 1, pe t
. ref' d). 29 See St evens , 891 S. W
. 2d a t 650
. 30 I d. at651
. 31 S e e R o g e rs v . S ta te , 640 S
. W
. 2d 248, 265 (T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1982) (o p. on second r eh' g) ( hol di ng 32 du e p roc es s cl ai m w ai ved on ap pe al be c au s e n o o bjec t i on m ad e a t revoc ati on he ari ng ). 11 On ap peal , app ell ant d oes not c lai m, nor co uld he, that he di d nothav e noti ce of the ide nti ty of the c hil dren named in the i ndi ctmentor thathe d id n o t h a ve n o ti ce of the charg es ag ain st him. I nst ead, appel lan t arg ues that there i s n o ev ide nce that the c hil dren 27 w ho te s ti fi ed a t hi s t r i al w ere th os e na me d i n th e i nd i ctm en t un de r t he p s eud onyms. Howe ver, a p pel lan t ac know led g ed th at t he c hil dren named by hi s t ri al couns el w ere the same c hil dren w ho were ac cus ing hi m of t h e al leg ed c ri mes s tated i n the i ndi ctment
. F ur th er mo re, th e c hi l dren w ere ap pe l l an t' s g ran dc hi l dren , an d ap pe l l an t l i v ed i n th e s am e home w it h tho se chil dren. M oreov er , attr ial , app ell ant n ev er obj ect ed th at he w as 28 una w are of

the victims' leg al nam es or tha t he was unab le to prep are an a dequa te de fense due t o the us e of

the pseud ony ms in the indi ctment
. Therefore, any v ar ian ce between 29 the i ndi ctmentand the p ro of of fered attr ial di d notoperate t o appel lan t' s su rp ris e or prejud ice his rig hts. In othe r words, an y v ariance in this case w as imm ate rial. 30 Fur ther more, "the fatal va r i a n c e d o ct r i n e i si nappl ic abl e to pseud ony m cas es so lon g as the d efendant's due proces s r ig ht t o not ic e i s s a ti sf ied ." Ap pel lan t di d notobj ectat 31 tr ial thathi s d ue proces s r ig hts to proper noti ce w ere v iol ated. M oreov er , app ell ant d oes 32See W ashi ngt on , 59 S
. W
. 3d at 26 3 (s t ati ng t ha t l ac k of su rpri s e ca n be i nfe rr ed from a s i l en t rec ord 33 b e c a u s e , i f a vic ti m 's n a m e i s n o t p ro p e rlyd i s c l o s e d , t h e d e fe n d a n t w o u l d h a v e p ro te s te d ); see a lso G ol lihar , 46 S. W
. 3d a t 258 (n ot i ng t hat t her e was no ev i dence i n t he r ecor d t hat t he d ef endan t di d no t know whi ch go car t t he St at e al l eged he st ol e ort hat t he def endan t was m i sl ed b yt he a l l egat i ons o rt he p r oofatt r i al when t he St at e pr ov ed t hat the d efe nd an t s t ol e a go- car t wi t h a di ff er ent m odel num bert han al l eged i n t he i n d i c tm e n t); T u to r

v . S ta te , N o. 14- 99- 00652 - C R , 200 0 T ex. App. LEX I S 2103, at* 19 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [1 4 th D i s t.] M a r. 3 0 , 2 0 0 0 , p e t. re f'd ) (c o n c l u d i n g th a t th e a p p e l l a n t p ro v i d e d n o th i n g to s h o w th a t h i s ri g h t t o no t i c e w as no t sa t i s fi ed or ot he rw i s e vi ol ated be c au s e t he ap pe l l an t k ne w t he i de nti t yof t he co m pl ai na nt)
. 12 not c lai m thathe d id not hav e actual notic e of the compl ain ants ' iden ti ti es or that he was n o t g i v e n p ro p e r n o t i c e o f t h e c h a rg e s a g a i n s t h i m. W e o v e r r u l e a p p e l l a n t ' s se cond 33 is sue. IV. S U FFI C I ENC Y OF TH E E V I DE NCE By hi s t hird throug h ei g hth i ss ues, a p p e ll ant c hal len g es the l eg al and factu al suffici ency

of the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the jud g ment. Spec ific all y , app ell ant a rg ues that the ev ide nce is i nsuffici ent b ecaus e the Sta te di d notprov e: (1 ) that the c hil dren l is ted u nder pseud ony ms i n the i ndi ctmentw ere the sa me chi ldren th at t est ified at tr ial ; ( 2) that appel lan t t ouche d M .M .5' s se xua l org an w it h hi s fin g ers ( is sues three and four) ; ( 3) that appel lan t c aused hi s mout h to touc h M.M .5' s sex ual org an (i ss ues three and four) ; ( 4) that appel lan t us ed his sex ual org an to penetrate M. M. 5's anus (i ss ues three and four) ; ( 5) w hat p a rto f a p p e ll a n t ' s b o d y c a m e i n t o c o n t a ctwi t h M. M. 7 ' s b o d y a n d A
. M. ' s b o d y (i s s u e s f ive and six ) ; and (6) w hat partof A.M. 's bodyappel lan t al leg edl y co ntacted ( is sues se v en and eight). A . St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw In c onducti ng a l eg al suffici ency rev iew , w e v iew

the re lev ant ev ide nce in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict to dete rmi ne w hether a rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e foundH o o p e r v . S ta te , 214 S
. W
. 3d 9 , 13 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 7) ( ci t i ng J a c k s o n v . Vir g in ia , 443 U
. S. 307 , 34 3 1 8 -1 9 (1 9 7 9 ); P o w e ll v . S ta te , 1 9 4 S .W .3 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 6 ( T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); G u e v a ra v . S ta te , 152 S. W
. 3d 4 5 , 4 9 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 4 )) ; E s c a m i lla v . S ta te , 14 3 S
. W
. 3d 81 4, 81 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 04 ). Kin g v . S ta te , 2 9 S .W .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) (e n b a n c ); B e c k h a m v . S ta te , 29 S. W
. 3d 35 14 8, 15 1 (T ex . A pp . –H ou s t on [ 14 t h D i s t
. ] 20 00 , pe t
. ref' d).

Beckham , 29 S. W
. 3d a t 151
. 36 W a ts o n v . S ta te , 20 4 S
. W
. 3d 40 4, 41 4-1 5 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 06 ). 37 I d. at417
. 38 G ol lihar , 46 S. W
. 3d a t 258
. 39 13 the ess enti al el ements of the cr ime bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. W e do not reev alu ate 34 the w eig ht and credi bil ity of the ev ide nce, and w e do not s ubst it ute o ur ow n j udg ment for the t ri er of fact. I nst ead, w e c onsi der w hether the jur y reache d a rati onal dec is ion
. 35 36 In a factual su ff ic ien cy

rev iew , we rev iew

the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht t o det er mine w het her the evidence is so w eak that the jury 's v erdict see ms clea rly w rong and m anifestly unj ustor ag ain st the g re at weig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. This Cour t w il l not 37 re v erse the jur

y 's ve rd ict unl ess w e c an s ay , w it h s ome obj ect iv e bas is i n the record, t hat the g re at weig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the v erdict. 38 B. A nal ysis As sub- is sues to his thi rd , four th, fifth, sev enth, and eig hth i ss ues, appel lan t arg ues that the e v ide nce is i nsuffici ent t o s ust ain hi s c onv icti on on all co unts bec ause the S tate d id n o tp re s e n te vid e n c e a tt ri a l t h a te a c h c h il d t h a t t e s t if ie d u s e d a p a rt ic u la r p s e u d o n ym in the i ndi ctment
. It appears that appel lan t is cl aimi ng thatthe ev ide nce is i nsuffici ent d ue to t he v ar ian ce in the i ndi ctmentand the p ro of present ed at tri al. Howev er , "[a]n i mmater ial v ariance is disregarded in a suf f iciency of

the ev iden ce rev iew ." Th erefore, ap pellan t's 39 claim ha s no m erit b e c a u se w e ha v e alread y conclud ed th at th e v ariance in this case isSee id. 40 14 imm ate rial. Accordingly , w e overrule appe llant's sub -issues.

40 Next, by his third and fourth issues, ap pellan t cont end s thatthe evidence is l egally and factu all y

i nsuffici ent t o suppo rt the jur y 's findi ng s t hat h e us ed hi s fin g ers t o penet ra te M. M. 5's se x ual org an, t hat h e c aused hi s mout h to cont act M. M. 5's sex ual org an, and t hat he us ed hi s s ex ual org an to pen e trate M. M. 5's anus . Appel lan t poi nts out that M. M. 5 "te stif ied th at [h e] hu rt her 'midd le'; tha th e tou ched her w ith his 'midd le' in her [']m iddle'; that he to uched her

w it h ' thes e' (n othi ng i n the record to ide nti fy wha t 'these' are) ; and touc h e d h e r

i n h e r b a c k
. " A p p e l l a n ta rg u e s , " Th e [ re ] i s n o t h i n g i n t h e re c o rd t h at est abl is hes w hat t he ' middl e' is . . . [o r] w hat t he ' back ' is ." Appel lan t al so poi nts to the re co rd w h e re in t h e S ta te us e d do lls to que st io n M.M. 5 co n ce rn in g w h a t h a p p e n e d st a ti n g, "T he reco rd is com plete ly silent as to w hen the child poin ted to th e do ll or a pa rt of the do ll, spec ific all y

w hat p art of the dol l' s a natomy the w it ness w as re ferr ing to. " M. M. 5 tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t had hu rther w hen app ell ant p ut hi s "mi ddl e" i n her back and that itfelt bad. She als o s tated thatappe lla n t p u t hi s "mi ddl e" i n her "mid dle ." Al thoug h appell ant is correctthat the record does not rev eal w hat partof the dol ls M .M .5 poin ted to w hile test if

y ing, the jury

was a ble to obse rv e he r actions. In a dditio n to M.M.5's testim ony, the jury a ls o h e a rd And elm an's te stimo ny tha t M.M.5 point ed to her fem ale sex ual org an and sta ted t hat a ppel lan t "s ti ck s h is hand ins ide " and that appel lan t hel d her "legs ope n an d kisse[d ]" he r there. Lisa te stif ied th at M .M.5 told her tha t app ellantput his pr iv ate p art i n her backpart and in her mouth and thatappel lan t "woul d l ay her dow n on the b ed and spread her l eg s o pen and l ic k her. " Al thoug h the ch il d di d notsp eci fical ly st ateS e e Vi lla lo n v . S ta te , 7 9 1 S .W .2 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 4 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) (e n b a n c ); O 'H a ra v . S ta te , 837 41 S
. W
. 2d 13 9, 14 2 (T ex . A pp . –A us t i n 1 99 2, pe t
. ref' d) (r ec og ni z i ng t ha t w he n "ex am i n i ng t he t es t i m on yof a c h i l d , t h e c o u rts h a v e k e p t i n m i n d th e c h i l d 's la c k o f te c h n i c a l k n o w l e d g e i n a c c u ra te l yd e s c rib i n g th e p a rts oft he b ody " ) ( ci t i ng C la rkv . S ta te , 5 5 8 S .W .2 d 8 8 7 , 8 8 9 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 7 ); C h a s e v . S ta te , 750 S. W
. 2d 4 1 , 4 4 (T e x . A p p .– F o rt W o rth 1 9 8 8 , p e t. re f'd ); B ry a n t v . S ta te , 6 8 5 S .W .2 d 4 7 2 , 4 7 4 (T e x . A p p .– F o rt W o rth 19 85 , pe t
. ref' d)).

See H ooper, 2 1 4 S .W .3 d a t 1 3 ; E s c a m illa , 143 S. W
. 3d a t 817
. 42 See W atson , 204 S. W
. 3d a t 414 - 15. 43 15 that the "mi ddl e" wa s appel lan t' s s ex ual org an, a ch il d i s n ot ex pect ed totes ti fy w it h the sam e clarity

or precision as an adult and here, the jury hea rd testim ony f rom th e child w hile sh e us e d a d o ll t o de m o n st ra te th e pa rt s o f th e bo d y she w a s d e sc rib in g. 41 Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the v erdict, w e c oncl ude t hat a ration al trier of fact could have foun d beyond a reaso nab le dou bt th at ap pellan t used his f ingers to pen etrat e M.M.5's sexual o rg an (coun t one ), that h e cau sed h is mou th to conta ct M.M.5's sexual org an (cou nt tw o), and t hath e used h is se x ual organ to pen etrat e M.M.5's anus (c ount three)
. F urther more, v iew ing the ev ide nce in a neutra l light , we c annot 42 conc lud e tha t t he ev ide nce is so w eak that the j ur y 's v erdict s eems c lea rlywro ng and ma n ife st ly unj ustor

ag ain st the g re at weig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. 43 Therefore, t he ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t. W e ov er ru le appel lan t' s t hird and fourth issues. By hi s fifth a nd s ixth i ss ues, appellan t contend s t hat t he ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly i n su f fici ent t o s uppor

t hi s "c onv icti on for Cou nts 5, and 7 of the i ndi ctment ." App ellantargues that"the State failed to p u ta n y ev iden ce into the reco rd thatwould est abl is h and demonst ra te w hat p art of the dol l the w it ness w as re ferr ing to, i [.] e[., ] t he ches t area, o r the b ack , or the li mbs, or

w hatev er" and that "the rec ord i s c omplet ely si len tIn h i s s i x th i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t s ta te s , "N o ra ti o n a l e [s i c ] j u ry c o u l d h a v e fo u n d th e e s s e n ti a l e l e m e n ts 44 o f C o u n ts 4 , 5 a n d 7 o f th e i n d i c tm e n t b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t." A p p e lla n t n e ith e r p ro v i d e s c i ta ti o n to aut hor i t ynora conci se ar gum ent supp or t i ng h i s asser t i on r egar di ng count f ourof t he i ndi ct m ent
. T her ef or e, to th e e x te n t t h a t a p p e l l a n t c h a l l e n g e s th e ju ry' s ve rd i c t a s to c o u n t fo u r, h e h a s w a i v e d th a t i s s u e . See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 38
. 1(i ).

See Villalon , 7 9 1 S .W .2 d a t 1 3 4 ; O ' H ara , 837 S. W
. 2d a t 142
. 45 See H ooper, 2 1 4 S .W .3 d a t 1 3 ; E s c a m illa , 143 S. W
. 3d a t 817
. 46 16 as to w hat p art of [hi s] body ca me i nto c ontact w it h w hat p art of the w it ness es' s b ody ." 44 M. M. 7 tes ti fied th at app e lla n t put hi s "t hin g " i n her "mid dle " and in her

mouth caus ing her

to v omitbec ause "pee" went i nto h er mouth. D eputy

Sol iztes ti fied th at M .M .7 tol d hi m she cal led appel lan t' s peni s "the thi ng ." M. M. 7 sta ted that appel lan t hur t her "bad" w hen hi s "mi ddl e" tou ched her "bac k p art. " An del man tes ti fied th at M .M .7 t old her that appel lan t puthi s "t hin g " i n her "butt " an d i n her

female s ex ual org an. Lis a s tated that M. M.7 to ld her

thatappel lan t puthi s p ri v ate p art i n M .M .7' s mout h, an d tha t he "peed" a w hit e s ubst ance int o M .M .7' s mout h. Lis a testi fied that M .M .7 s tated thatw hen s he was naked , app ell ant a ls o puthi s p ri v ate p a rti n her pr iv ate p art and i n the "bac k." The ev ide nce present ed s how ed th at appel lan t put his "middl e," "thi ng " or "pr iv ate p art" i n: (1 ) M.M.7's mo uth and "pe ed" a w hite liquid; (2) in her "b ack" or "but t"; and (3) i n he r fe ma le sex ual org an or

"pr iv ate p art." 45 Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the v erdict, w e c oncl ude t hat a ra ti onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found bey ond a re asona ble doubt that appel lan t c ontacted M. M. 7's anus w it h hi s s ex ual org an ( count5)and that appel lan t c ontacted M .M .7' s s ex ual org an w it h his sex ual org an (c ount 7)
. Fur ther more, v iew ing the ev ide nce in a ne u tral 46 lig ht, w e cann ot conclu de tha t the e v iden ce is so weak th at th e jury 's v erdict see ms clea rly w ro n g a nd mani festl y

unj ustor

ag ain st the g re at weig ht an d preponderance of theSee W atson , 204 S. W
. 3d a t 414 - 15. 47 17 evide n ce. The refore, th e evidence is l egally and factu ally

suf f icient. W e overrule 47 app ellant 's fifth an d sixth issue s. By his seventh an d eighth issue s, app ellantconte nds tha t the ev iden ce is legally and factu all y

i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t t he j ur y 's findi ng s that he contacted A.M .' s a nus w it h his se x ual org an, that his sex ual org an penetrated A.M .' s mouth, and t hat h is se x ual org an penetrated A.M .' s s ex ual org an. Appel lant a rgues that "there i s n othi ng i n the record to est abl is h w hat the 'mi ddl e' or ' back ' is ," t hat t here i s n o ev ide nce "as to w hat A ppel lan t put in t h e w it ness 's mouth, " and that the "S tate did not est abl is h w hat p art of the dol l the witn e ss wa s p o in ti n g to or re fe rrin g to ." Ap p e lla n t u rge s t h a t t h is Co u rtm a y n o t " in d u lge in spec ula ti on w hen t he record was not d ev elo ped by the Stat e." Again app ellantis correct th at th e record do es no t show w hat part of the dolls A.M. poi nted to w hen s he te sti fied th at he "hur t" her "front " and "back ." Howev er , t he j ur y sa w the d oll s a nd w it ness ed A. M. 's acti ons. M oreov er , An del man st ated that w hen A. M. us ed the term " mid dle," she po inted t o her fem ale sexual organ, and w hen A.M. used the te rm "back ," she point ed to her "butt." A.M. st ated that appel lan t puthi s b ody par t i n her mouth and t hat i t " fe ltn a st y" a n d tha t s he feltl ik e v omit ing
. W hen t he St ate a sk ed A. M. i f she re membered st ati ng thatappell ant p ut hi s "front p art" i n her mouth, sh e repl ied by

mov ing her head up and dow n. A.M . ag re ed th at ap pel lan t puthi s b ody par t i n her "frontpar

t" and her "ba c k p a rt
. " A n d w h e n t h e S t a t e a s k e d , " D i d t h a t g o o n t h e i n s i d e o r s t a y on t he outs ide ?", A .M . respon ded, "A l ittl e bi t on the i nsi de" and that it"hurted. " Lis a testi fied th at A.M . t old her

thatappel lan t puthi s p ri v ate p art i n her pr iv ate p a rtand in her mouth.See Villalon , 7 9 1 S .W .2 d a t 1 3 4 ; O ' H ara , 837 S. W
. 2d a t 142
. 48 See H ooper, 2 1 4 S .W .3 d a t 1 3 ; E s c a m illa , 143 S. W
. 3d a t 817
. 49 See W atson , 204 S. W
. 3d a t 414 - 15. 50 18 Andel man st ated that w hen s he to ok A.M .' s medi cal hi sto ry , A. M. ind ic ated that appel lan t had put his "m iddle" in her " b u t t , " in her mo uth , and in her sexual org an. The ev iden ce prese nte d sho w ed th at ap pellan t puthis "f ro n tp art," "m iddle" or "priv ate part" in A.M.'s mouth, "pr iv ate p art" or "mid dle " or

female s ex ual org an, a nd "butt." 48 Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the v erdict, w e c oncl ude t hat a ra ti onal tr ier

of fact coul d hav e found bey ond a re asona ble doubt that appell ant c ontacted A.M .' s a nus w it h hi s s ex ual org an, that his sex ual org an penetrated A.M .' s mouth, and tha t his sexual org an p ene trate d A.M.'s sexual organ. Furthermo re, v iew ing th e evidence in 49 a ne utral light, w e can notconclud e tha t the ev iden ce is so w eak th at th e jury 's v erdict seem s clearly

w rong and man ifestly unju st or against the great w eight and prepo nde rance of the evidence
. T here fore, the e v iden ce is legallya nd factu ally suf f icient. W e overrule 50 app ellant 's sev ent h an d eighth issue s. V. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t' s e ig ht i ss ues, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt' s j udg ment.
Do notpub lish S E E TE X. R
. A P P
. P
. 4 7 .2 (b ).
Del iv ered and filed the 17th day of June, 2010