NO. 07-07 -040 3-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D APR IL 28 , 200 9

_________

_________

_________

___ JAM ES M ILTON R OBER TS, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 41 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF MO NT GO ME RY COU NT Y; TH NO. 07-07 -076 49-CR; HON. K. MICHAEL MAYES, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. James Mil ton Rober

ts w as conv icted of two counts of agg ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d and sent enced to impr is onment for l ife. He seek s t o rev erse thos e c onv icti ons by claimin g tha t 1) the evidence is legally insuf f icient to supp ort the m, and 2) the tria l co urt er re d i n admi tti ng i nto e v ide nce his oral sta tement g iv en to the pol ice

. W e af firm the jud g ments.2

Leg al Suff

iciency Appel lan t was charg ed w it h hav ing ca used the penetra ti on of the female s ex ual org an of hi s for mer g ir lfrien d ’s daug hter by the ins erti on of hi s fin g er ( count1) and w it h hav ing ca used the penetrati on of her female s ex ual org an by hi s s ex ual org an or

by caus ing her

se x ual org an to co ntact hi s sex ual org an ( count2)

. Appel lan t c ontends the ev ide nce is i nsuffici ent b ecaus e the co mplai nant w as the only one to t est ify

to the a ss aul ts and s he w ait ed s ev eral y ears t o tel l any one abo ut t hem. The i ss ues are ov er ru led

. T h e t e st imony

of a c hil d v icti m al one c an be suffici ent t o s ust ain a c onv icti on for ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t. Bar gas v. State, 252 S. W .3d 8 76, 8 88 (T ex . Ap p.–H oust on [14 Dis t.] 2008, no p et.) ; Per ez v. Sta te, 113 S. W .3d 8 19, 8 38 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2003, th pet. re f’d)

. Here, the y outh test ified that appell ant mov ed his fing er in and out o f her v ag ina on m ore tha n on e occa sion. She also testif ied that he later progressed to putt ing his penis in her v ag ina , t hat i t hur

t, and t hat w hit e s tuff

woul d c ome out of hi s peni s. In ad dit ion to thi s t est imony , t here w as ev ide nce that 1) the compl ain ant h ad a heal ed hy menal transe ction ca used bybluntforce tha t w as consiste nt w ith pe nile pe net ration and for w hich no al ter nati v e ex pla nati ons w ere prov ide d, 2)a p pel lan t c onfessed to pe netrati ng the compl ain ant w it h hi s fin g er and peni s b ut c lai med i t was ini ti ated by the compl ain ant and his g ir lfri end w ho to ld him he needed to teac h the compl ain ant about sex , and 3)appel lan t th re a te n e d to hu rtth e ch ild an d he r m o th e r if th e ch ild to ld a n yon e w h a t was ha p p e n in g. From thi s e v iden ce , a r a ti onal tr ier of fact c oul d hav e found beyond a re asona ble doubt that appel lan t c ommitt ed th e acts all eg ed i n bot h c ounts of the i ndi ctment

.T h e S ta te d i s a g re e s th a t a p p e l l a n t w a s i n c u s to d y a t t h e ti m e h e g a v e th e o ra l s ta te m e n t. 1 3 Lack of Statutor

y Warni ngs Next, appel lan t arg ues that his oral sta tement shoul d nothav e been admitted i nto ev ide nce becau se the a dmonit ion s g iv en him did not subs tanti all y co mply w it h ar t. 38.22 of the C ode of C ri minal Procedu re . W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. Ar ti cl e 38. 22 prov ide s t hat a n electroni c recordin g of a defendant’ s s tatement re sul ti ng from a cus todi al int er ro g ati on maynot be admi tted int o ev ide nce unl ess pr ior to the s tatement , butdur ing the re cordin g , t he ac cus ed w as g iv en the foll ow ing w ar nin g s: 1) he has the r ig ht to remai n sil ent and not m ake any statementat all and that any st atement he mak es maybe u sed ag ain st him at his tr ial ; 2) any sta tement he makes maybe u sed as evidence against him in court; 3) he h as the right to have a lawy er p resen t to advise him pr ior to and dur ing any

q uest ion ing ; 4)if he is unabl e to employ a lawy er , he has the r ig ht to ha v e a l awy e r a p p o i n t e d t o a d v i s e h i m p r i o r t o a n d d u r i n g a n y q u e s t i o n i n g ; a n d 5 ) he has the ri g ht to termi nate the inte rv iew at any time. T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 38.22 § 2 ( a ) &§ 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 5 )

. Eq u i v a l e n tth o u g h no ti d e n t i c a l w a r n i n g s w i l l a l s o s a t i s fy the s tatut e. Id. §3( e) (2 ). H ere, t he tr ial co urt fo und t hat a ppel lan t was in cus tody at the time he mad e his state me nt and that the w arnings he receiv ed met the st atu tory requireme nts. 1 T h e f irs t pro b le m we e n co u n te r is th a t ap p e lla n t d id no t s p e cify ho w th e w a rn in gs he recei v ed fail ed to co mportw it h tho se mandated by ar t. 38.22. G iv e n t h is, h e di d not adeq uatel y

br ief the i ss ue and, therefore he w aiv ed i t.4

The sec ond probl em i s that if he i s s ug g est ing thatthere ex is ted a l ack of subs tanti al compl ian ce becau se the o ff ic er si mply tol d hi m thathi s s tatementwoul d be used in “c our t” as oppos ed to tr ial , t he arg ument was reje cte d i n Bi blev. Sta te , 1 6 2 S

. W

. 3 d 2 3 4 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2005)

. There, the cour t add re ss ed a li ke arg ument an d c oncl uded t hat u se of th e wo rd “co u rt ” is t h e f u lly ef fe ct ive e qui vale n t o f

“tri a l” b e ca u se th e two re qui re d w a rn in gs ov er lap and “c our

t” i s t he broader

ter m. Id. at 241. The thi rd probl em i s t hat i f he is sug g est ing that the pol ic e faile d to c omply w it h ar t. 3 8

. 2 2 § 2 (b ) ( re qu ir in g t h a tt h e p e rs o n gi vin g t h e st a t e m e n tkn o win gl y a n d vo lu n t a ri ly wa ive his r ig hts to re main si len t and to c ounse l) , he is ag ain mis tak en. The record i ndi cat es that appel lan t was a sk e d i f

he understo od hi s r ig hts and admoni shed that the o ff ic er w anted to m ake su re he un dersto od “it.” In reply , app ellantsaid “y es sir” and c o n t in ued his dia log ue w it h the off ic er . No ex press ed v er bal w aiv er of his r ig hts w as uttered by appel lan t, how ev er . W hen add re ss ing l ik e facts , t he c our t i n Tur ner v. St ate , 252 S.W .3d 571 ( T e x. Ap p .– Hou sto n [14 D is t.] 2008, pet. ref’d) hel d tha t ar t. 38.22 §2( b) w as th sat is fied. Id. at 583. An ex press v er bal w aiv er of hi s ri g hts w as not needed if the total ity of c ircums tanc es depi cte d a waiv er , ac cordin g to the c our t. Id. at 583- 84. The total ity of ci rc umstan ces depi ct suc h a waiv er here. The ju dg ments of the tr ial co urt are aff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice

Do not p ubl is h.