C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS FRANK I E HERMOSI L L O, Ap pe lla nt,
v . TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee

. § § § § § § No
. 08 -0 7- 00 20 5- CR

Appea l from the 297th District Court of Tarr ant County , Texas (TC#0994246D)
O P I N I O N Th is i s ana

p p e a l f r o mc o n v i c t i o n s f

o r t h r e e c o u n t s o f

a g g r av a t e d

s e xu a l a s s a

u l to f a c hil d under fourtee n y ear s of ag e, and one count of indec ency with a child by

contac t. The jury

assessed punishment at ninety -n i n e y ea rs’ im prisonment on eac h count of a g g ravated sexual assault, and tw e nty y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt o n th e ind e c e nc y wi th a c hil d c ount. F ACTUAL SUMMA RY The c omplainant was twe lve y ear s old at the time of trial. Appellant is her father. When she was be tween the ag es of six and nine y ear s old, A ppellant beg an inserting his f inge rs into her va g ina and re ctum in the morning afte r his wife left for work. He would a lso insert his penis in her vag ina. This activity

occur red more than twenty times a nd Appellant war

ned her he would g o to ja il if she told any one. She did not tell beca use she wa s afr aid. Dr. Jamy e Coffma

n was the me dical dire ctor of the CARE team, a c hild abuse prog ram at Cook Chil dren’ s Medical Cente r in For t Worth, Tex as. She per formed an ev aluation on t he
c omp la ina

nt o n Se pte mbe r 7 , 2 00 5, te n d ay s a ft e r t he la st i ns tanc e of

c on ta c t. I t w a s n ot p os sib le to ob ta in an y D N A e v id e n c e a f te r th a t le n g th o f ti me . T h e p h y s ic a l e xam r e v e a le d a c le f t on thechild’s hy

men, but it was inconclusive a s to what had c aused it. Dr. Coff man testified that sexual pe ne tr a tio n c an o c c ur wi tho ut any tr a uma to the hy

me n, or e ve n w ith out to uc hin g the hy me n at a ll. T h e c h i l d r e l a t e d t o h e r a p a t t e r no f s e x u a l a b u s e s i m i l ar

t o w h a ts h e d e s c r i b e d

t o t h e j u r y. Just p ri or to t he c hil d’ s e le ve nth

bir thd ay , h e r mo th e r f

ound he r c ry ingin h e r r oo m. Appellant wa s watchingtelevision. The complaina nt conf i d ed i n her a

bout the sexual abuse. Appellant denie d abusing the child and c alled her a liar. SUF F ICIENCY OF THE E VIDENCE I n h is s ole iss ue fo r r e vie w, Ap pe lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nce is leg a lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o
su pp or t th e c on vic tio n. Spe c if

ic a lly , he argue s that the la c k of ph y sic a l e vid e nc e c a lls the va lid ity of the c onviction into question. I n r e vie wi ngthe le g a l su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to s up po rt

a c ri min a l c on vic tio n, we mus t
re vie w a ll the e vid e nc e , b oth State and defe ns e, in th e lig ht m os t f avo ra ble to t he ve rd ic t to de te rm ine wh e the r any

ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h ave fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the of fe ns e beyond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89, 61 L .E d. 2d 560 ( 19 79 ); Lan e v . S

tate , 151 S.W .3d 188, 191-92 (Te x .Crim.App. 2004). We do not resolve a ny conflict of f

act or assig n cre dibilit y

to the witnesses, as it was the function of the tr ier of fac t to do so. Se e Ad

e lm an v . S

tate , 828 S.W. 2d 41 8, 42 1 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ); Ma tso n v . S tate , 819 S. W
. 2 d 8 3 9 , 8 4 3 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). I nstead, our duty is only to determine if both the expli cit and implicit finding s of the trier of fac t a re rational by viewing all of the e vidence admitted at trial in a lig ht most favorable to the verdic t. A d e lman , 8 2 8 S.W .2d at 422. In so doing, a ny inconsistencies in the e vidence are resolved in f avor of the ver dict. Matson , 819 S.W .2d at 843. A per son commits the offense of ag g ravated sexual assault of a child if he intentionally or knowing ly

cause s (1) the penetr ation of t he child’s se x ual org an by any means, (2) the pene trationof the mouth of a c hild by the sexual org an of the actor , or (3) the sexual org an of a child to contac t the sexual org an of a

nother pe rson, including the ac tor, and the child is young er tha n fourtee n y ear s of age

. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 22.021(a) (1)( B) (i)(ii)( iii); (2) (B ) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). A per son commits the offense of indec ency with a child if, with a c hild y oung er tha n 17 y ears an d n ot the person’ s spouse, he e ng ag es in sexual contact with the child or c auses the child to eng ag e in sexual
co n t act. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 2 1
. 1 1 (a )( 1 ) ( Ve rn o n2 0 0 3 ). “S ex u al co n t ac t ” m ea n s an y t o u ch i n g, including touc hing thr oug h clothing, of the bre ast or any part of the g enitals of the child if committed wit h t h e i n t en t t o arouse or g ratify the sexual desire of a

ny person. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 21.11(c) (1) ( Ver

non 2003). I n a prose cution for se x ual assault, pene tration may be proven by circ umstantial evidence

. Nils so n v . S

tate , 477 S.W. 2d 59 2, 59 5 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ). A c hil d v ic tim ’s te sti mony a lon e is
s u ff icient evidenc e of pe netration. Ga rc ia v . S tate , 5 6 3 S. W. 2 d

9 2 5 , 9 2 8 ( T e x. Cr im

. Ap p . 1 978). Pe ne tr a tio n, wi thi n th e me anin g of Se c tio ns 22 .0 11 or

22 .0 21 of

the Te xas P e na l Co de , o c c ur s so l o n g a s c o n t a c t w i t h t h e f e m a l e s e xu a l o r g an c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y b e r e g ar d e d b y o r d i n ar y En g lis h speake rs as more intrusive than contact with the out er va g inal lips. Ve rn on v . S tate , 841 S.W .2d 407, 409 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). Penetration of the vag inal cana l is not required to prove penetr ation under the statute. Id. Evidence of the slig htest penetration is sufficient. Id . “F emale se x ual org an” is a more ge nera l term t han “vag ina” and ref ers to the entire fema le g enitalia, includingboth vag ina and the vulva. Ay lor

v . S tate , 727 S.W .2d 727, 729-30 (Te x .App.–Austin 1987, pet. ref ’d). There is no r e qu ir e me n t t h a t a c h il d v ic ti m’ s te s ti mo n y

b e c o r r o b o r a te d b y me d ic a l or phy sical evide nce. Se e Ga rc ia , 5 63 S.W. 2d a t 92 8; T

earv. S tate , 74 S.W .3d 555, 560 (T e x.Ap p. –D a lla s 2 00 2, pe t. r e f’ d) ; Em pty v . S tate , 972 S.W .2d 194, 196 (Tex.App.–Dallas 1998, pe t. r e f’ d) ; Kar

ne s v . S tate , 873 S.W .2d 92, 96 (Tex.App.–Dallas 1994, no pe t.). The spe cific intentto a

ro us e or g ratif y the se xua l de sir e of

a pe rs on c an b e inf

e rr e d f ro m a d efen dant’ s c on du c t,
re m ar k s , o r all the surr ounding c ircumstance s. Se e Mc Ke nz ie v . S

tate , 617 S.W .2d 211, 216 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. [Pan e l O p. ] 198 1) ; Nav arro v . S tate , 2 41 S.W. 3d

77 , 7 9 ( Te x.Ap p. –H ou sto n [1s t Dist.] 2007, pet. re f’d)

. Ne ve rt he le ss, Ap pe lla

nt a rgue s th a t th e c omp la ina

nt’ s te sti mony

is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o su pp or t hi s convictions bec ause, “ Given the a g e of the victim at the time of the off ense . . . it defies log ic that
no phy sical findings would be present i n this victim .” B ut Dr. Coffman e x plained that ther e ca n be sexual penetration without any trauma. The lac k of phy sical evide nce doe s not render the evidenc e ins uf fi c ie nt. Re vie wi ngthe e vid e nc e un de r t he a pp ro pr iate sta

nd ard s, we c on c lude it w a s le g a lly sufficie nt to support Appellant’s three convictions for a g g ravated sexual assault and one conviction for indec ency

with a child. We overr

ule Appellant’ s sole issue and affirm t he judgment of the trial
c ourt
. ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice April 9, 2009 B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d C ar r , JJ. Carr, J., not participating (Do Not Publish)