Affirmed as Reformed and Opinion Filed June 1, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01243-CR 

JONATHAN LYNN BOUGHTON, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1215740-H 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Jonathan Lynn Boughton appeals his aggravated sexual assault conviction. A jury 

convicted appellant, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years’ confinement. In a 

single issue, appellant argues the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. In a crosspoint, the State argues the judgment should be reformed to correctly show that appellant was 

convicted under section 22.021 of the penal code. As reformed, we affirm the trial court’s 

judgment. 

 Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of sexual assault of his niece, 

V.M., who was fourteen at the time of trial. V.M. testified appellant came to stay with her 

family for the summer when she was six years old. Appellant babysat V.M. and her brother. 

Appellant and V.M. were sitting on a bed when appellant asked if she wanted to play “the 
 –2– 

nervous game.” V.M. testified the nervous game involved appellant touching V.M. on the leg 

and moving his hand up her thigh “to see if [she] would get nervous.” Appellant moved his hand 

“all the way up” and touched V.M.’s “privates.” V.M. testified her “privates” were the vagina. 

After that first time, “it was more and more each day,” with appellant eventually touching both 

“the inside and outside” of her vagina and “showing his parts,” which V.M. said was his penis. 

Appellant also put his penis in V.M.’s vagina “almost every day.” As a result, V.M.’s “body 

would hurt,” and her back “was really in pain.” V.M. remembered “one time bleeding,” and that 

made her “scared.” 

 V.M.’s mother had a boyfriend who had several children, one of which was a daughter 

named Ashley. Ashley was “16, 17” when she lived with V.M. and her mother. Until she was 

eleven years old, V.M. had not told anyone about the abuse because she “thought [she] was 

going to be the one to get in trouble or no one was going to believe [her].” V.M.’s parents were 

“going through a really hard time dealing with their divorce,” and V.M. thought “bringing this 

up” would make things worse. V.M. testified she was scared her father was going to hurt 

appellant. One night, V.M. was with some friends and Ashley and Ashley’s boyfriend when one 

of V.M.’s friends asked for a cigarette. Ashley’s boyfriend was “getting onto us” about how “we 

shouldn’t be smoking.” V.M. took Ashley aside and told her about the abuse to explain V.M. 

“wasn’t this big troublemaker out of nowhere.” Even though Ashley said she would not tell 

anyone, V.M. “knew in the back of [her] head she was going to tell someone because that’s 

something that you should do.” One night thereafter, V.M.’s stepmother and father came into 

her room, woke her up, and “were freaking out.” They asked V.M. if appellant had touched her, 

and V.M. denied “everything” because she was scared her father was going to “freak out” and 

she was “scared of what he was going to do.” The next morning, V.M. went to her father and 
 –3– 

told him, “yes, it’s true, that [appellant] did touch [V.M.] for a long time.” V.M. “didn’t really 

give them too much details,” but her parents took her to the police. 

 Appellant testified V.M. is five years younger than him. Appellant testified he never 

touched V.M.’s “genitalia, her private parts.” Appellant testified he never played a 

“nervousness” game with anybody. Nevertheless, the jury convicted appellant of aggravated 

sexual assault, and this appeal followed. 

 In a single issue, Appellant argues the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. 

Specifically, appellant argues V.M.’s “chaotic family,” the fact that V.M. “lived in numerous 

cities and houses,” V.M.’s “drug use and addiction,” the fact V.M. got “in trouble at school,” and 

the “details of the outcry,” when coupled with the defensive evidence in this case, render the 

evidence insufficient to support the verdict. 

When reviewing the legal sufficiency of 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. See Temple v. State, 390 

S.W.3d 341, 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Although we consider everything presented at trial, 

we do not reevaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence or substitute our judgment for 

that of the fact finder. See Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 

Because the jury is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight given to their 

testimony, any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence are resolved in favor of the verdict. 

See Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Our review includes both 

properly and improperly admitted evidence. See Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2007). We also consider both direct and circumstantial evidence, as well as any 

reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. Id. 
 –4– 

To satisfy the elements of aggravated sexual assault of a child as alleged in count one of 

the indictment, the State was required to prove that appellant intentionally or knowingly 

penetrated the sexual organ of the victim, a child under fourteen at the time, with his sexual 

organ. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i), (a)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2014). 

 Here, V.M. testified appellant sexually assaulted her on many occasions over several 

years. The jury was free to believe V.M.’s testimony and disbelieve appellant. Further, this 

testimony alone was sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 

art. 38.07. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude the evidence was 

sufficient to support appellant’s aggravated assault conviction. See Temple, 390 S.W.3d at 360; 

Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 111. 

 In its cross-point, the State points out the judgment in this case states the “Statute for 

Offense” is “22.021 Property Code.” The State asks us to reform the judgment to reflect 

appellant was convicted under “22.021 Penal Code.” We note the judgment also incorrectly 

states that the punishment was assessed by the jury. An appellate court has the power to correct 

and reform a trial court judgment to make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary 

data and information to do so, or make any appropriate order as the law and nature of the case 

may require. Nolan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.), 

quoting Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). We sustain 

the State’s cross-point. We order the trial court’s judgment be reformed to show appellant was 

convicted under “22.021 Penal Code” and the punishment was assessed by the trial court. 

 
 –5– 

In all other respects, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

131243F.U05 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –6– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JONATHAN LYNN BOUGHTON, 

Appellant 

No. 05-13-01243-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 1, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1215740-H. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Myers 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED

as follows: 

under the heading "Statute for Offense," the word "Property" is deleted and the 

word "Penal" is substituted. Under the heading “Punishment Assessed by:,” the 

word “JURY” is deleted and the word “COURT” is substituted. 

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered June 1, 2015.