MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00510-CR

Arturo ROSAS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CR-10852

Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 1, 2010

AFFIRMED

A jury convicted appellant Arturo Rosas of three counts of aggravated sexual assault and 

one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced Rosas to fifty 

years imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division for each 

aggravated sexual assault count and fifteen years for the aggravated assault count. The sentences 

were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, Rosas’s sole point of error is that the evidence is 
04-09-00510-CR

- 2 -

factually insufficient to support his three convictions for aggravated sexual assault. We affirm 

the trial court’s judgment.

BACKGROUND

Fernando Munoz, a San Antonio Code Compliance Officer, was driving down the street 

when the complainant flagged him down. The complainant was yelling, “help me” and “I’m 

being raped.” At first, Munoz thought she was wearing a sundress, but as the complainant ran 

closer, he realized that she was naked. Munoz immediately called his supervisor who then called 

the police.

San Antonio Police Officer Steve Christian was the first to arrive. He testified the 

complainant kept saying, “He’s raping me” and “He’s trying to kill me.” The complainant then 

showed Officer Christian the house where she had been assaulted, and when Officer Christian 

went to the house, Rosas’s aunt let him into the garage apartment. Rosas was in the apartment 

and Officer Christian arrested him.

The complainant was taken to the hospital for a sexual assault examination. She was 

examined by sexual assault nurses Casey Ward and Shelly Botello. Ward testified the 

complainant had scratches on both sides of her face, left thigh, chest, and lower back. 

Photographs taken during the examination were admitted into evidence. Botello testified that the 

complainant told her that her anus was penetrated by both Rosas’s fingers and penis, her mouth 

was penetrated by Rosas’s penis, and her vagina was penetrated by both Rosas’s fingers and 

penis. Botello found no trauma during the genital exam, but stated this was normal in the “adult, 

sexually active population.” Although Botello noted there was no trauma to the genitals, she did 

find a linear tear to the complainant’s anus and said the anus was “red and raw.”
04-09-00510-CR

- 3 -

At trial, the complainant testified she was waiting for the bus when Rosas pulled up and 

asked her if she needed a ride home. At first, the complainant refused to accept the ride, but she 

eventually agreed. Instead of driving her home, Rosas drove to his aunt’s house. According to 

the complainant, she and Rosas went into the garage apartment attached to the house. As the 

complainant was sitting on his bed, Rosas “smacked” her bottle of ice tea from her hands, 

jumped on top of her, and grabbed her neck with both hands. The complainant said she was in 

pain, could not breathe, and felt like she was going to pass out. Rosas told the complainant not 

to struggle because he was stronger than she was. Just before she passed out, Rosas told the 

complainant to take her clothes off because he wanted oral and anal sex. The complainant stated 

she tried to leave the room twice, but the second time, Rosas threw her on the ground and started 

choking her again. He told her, “The way I’m squeezing you I can kill you.” The complainant 

testified she feared for her life and did not believe she would leave the bedroom alive.

After the threat, the complainant unwillingly performed oral sex on Rosas but he then 

demanded anal sex again. When she refused, Rosas asked, “Are you going to make me hurt you 

again?” The complainant then unwillingly submitted to anal sex. When the complainant asked 

Rosas to stop because it hurt and she needed to use the bathroom, Rosas led her to the bathroom 

and made the complainant wash his penis. After they returned to the bedroom, the complainant 

unwillingly submitted to both vaginal and anal sex. At times, Rosas would become flaccid and 

force the complainant to perform oral sex.

At one point, the complainant heard someone sweeping a broom outside the apartment. 

While on top of Rosas, she feigned enjoyment then jumped off Rosas and ran for the door. 

Rosas attacked her before she could unlock and open the door but the complainant was able to 

bang on the door. Rosas wrapped his legs around the complainant and started choking her again. 
04-09-00510-CR

- 4 -

Celestina Rosas, Rosas’s mother, heard the bang and opened the door with a key. The 

complainant testified Celestina said in Spanish that she “knows that he had done it before.” 

Once Celestina was inside the apartment, Rosas started choking the complainant against the wall. 

Celestina tried to restrain Rosas and when he turned his attention to her, the complainant escaped 

out the door and ran into the street naked.

DISCUSSION

In his sole point of error, Rosas contends the evidence is factually insufficient to support 

his convictions for aggravated sexual assault. More specifically, Rosas argues that no rational 

trier of fact could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated sexual assault 

based on the evidence presented. He does not complain on appeal of his conviction for 

aggravated assault.

In light of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’s recent decision in Brooks v. State, the 

standard we use to review a factual sufficiency claim is the now same as the legal sufficiency 

standard. No. PD-0210-09, 2010 WL 3894613, at *14 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 6, 2010). In 

Brooks, the court held “that the Jackson v. Virginia standard is the only standard that a reviewing 

court should apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a 

criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. The court 

explicitly overruled the standard for a factual sufficiency review as set forth in Clewis v. State. 

Id. Before Brooks, in reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we reviewed the 

evidence in a neutral light. Steadman v. State, 280 S.W.3d 242, 247 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 

Although the appellate courts were to review the evidence in a neutral light, the courts were still 

required to defer to the factfinder’s credibility and weight determinations. See Wesbrook v. 

State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The court pointed out in Brooks that this 
04-09-00510-CR

- 5 -

created an inconsistency, and the court of criminal appeals resolved this inconsistency by 

adopting one evidentiary standard for every sufficiency review. Brooks, 2010 WL 3894613, at 

*14. The court adopted the legal sufficiency standard, as set out in Jackson v. Virginia. We 

must therefore now view the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury’s determination of 

credibility and weight for any sufficiency challenge. See id at *8. Accordingly, even though 

Rosas appeals the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we will review the evidence in a light 

favorable to the jury’s verdict as set forth in Brooks. 

A person commits aggravated sexual assault if that person knowingly or intentionally 

“causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that 

person’s consent; [or] causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ 

of the actor, without that person’s consent” and if the accused forced participation with the use of 

physical force and violence and, with words or acts, placed the complainant in fear of imminent 

bodily injury or death. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2010).

Rosas contends that because the case came down to a “he said/she said,” the evidence is 

so lacking due to the complainant’s lack of credibility that no rational jury could have found him 

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The complainant’s testimony that Rosas penetrated her anus and vagina with his penis 

and fingers, and mouth with his penis without her consent is alone sufficient to support the 

convictions for aggravated sexual assault. See Briseno v. State, 293 S.W.3d 644, 646 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.) (quoting Tinker v. State, 148 S.W.3d 666,669 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.)); see also Garcia v. State, 563 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1978) (holding that testimony by complainant that defendant’s sexual organ penetrated 

complainant’s sexual organ without complainant’s consent is sufficient evidence of penetration); 
04-09-00510-CR

- 6 -

Ponce v. State, 299 S.W.3d 167, 174 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2009, no pet.) (same). Although 

Rosas argues the complainant’s testimony was incredible, “[i]t is the sole province of the jury to 

weigh the credibility of the witnesses and testimony.” Schmidt v. State, 232 S.W.3d 66, 68 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2007). In that same vein, the jury may choose to believe or disbelieve all or part of 

the complainant’s testimony. See Jones v. State, 984 S.W.2d 254, 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 

At no time was there conflicting evidence that the complainant lied to either Officer Christian, 

the sexual assault nurses, or on the stand. It is apparent the jury chose to believe the 

complainant’s testimony.

Rosas also argues that had the complainant been subject to a number of sexual assaults 

over several hours, there would be more DNA evidence. A forensic examiner testified the only 

DNA evidence he found was the complainant’s DNA on Rosas’s hands. However, the 

complainant testified Rosas did not ejaculate during the entire encounter, and moreover, physical 

evidence is not required to prove aggravated sexual assault. See Tinker, 148 S.W.3d at 669. 

When viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we hold the evidence 

was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we 

overrule Rosas’s sole point of error.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we hold Rosas’s sole point of error is without merit and we 

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Do Not Publish