Opinion filed Ap ril 23 , 2 009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 07 -0 02 93 -CR

____ ____ __ CU RTIS AC EVE DO, Ap pellant

V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 367th Distric t Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F -2006-2373- E

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The jury convicted Curtis Ac evedo of two counts o f i n d ec en cy with a child and, upon appellant’ s plea of tr

ue to the enha

nceme nt alleg ation, assessed punishment on e ach c ount at
c on fi ne me nt f

or te n y e ars . Th e tr ia l c ourt or de re d th a t th e se nte nc e s r un c on se c uti ve ly . We a ff

ir m. I

. Issues Appellant pre sents four points of er ror on a p p ea l

. I n t h e first a

nd second points, he challeng es the leg al and fa ctual sufficiency of the e vidence . I n the third and four th points, he contends that the stac king of his sentence s was improper

.2 I I

. Sufficiency of the E

videnc e We will apply

the foll owing well-re cog nized standards of revie w to appellant’ s sufficienc y
c ha lle ng e s. To de te rm ine if the e vid e nc e is le g a lly su ff ic ie nt, we mus t re vie w al l of the e vid e nc e in the light most favor able to the ve rdict and d et er m i n e wh ether any rational trier

of fa ct could have found t he essential elements of the c rime beyond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 44 3 U .S. 30 7 ( 19 79 ); J

ac k so n v. Sta te , 17 S.W .3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). To deter mine if the evide nce is factua lly

sufficie nt, we must revie w all of the e vidence in a neutra l light and de termine whe ther the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the ve rd ic t is so we a k th a t th e ve rd ic t is c le arl y wr on g and

manif e stl y un jus t
o r w h e th e r th e v e r d ic t i s a g a in s t t

h e g r e a t w e ig h t a

n d p r e p o n d e r an c e o f

th e c o n f li c ti n g e v ide nce. W ats on v . S tat e , 2 04 S.W. 3d

40 4, 41 4- 15 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); Cle wis v . S tat e , 922 S.W .2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appell an t wa s ch arg ed with and c onvicted of two c ounts of indece ncy with a child by intentionally

and knowing ly

eng ag ing in se x ual contac t with A. J

. by touching her g enitals on two separ ate oc casions. The rec ord shows that A.J.’s mother and appe llant g ot married in F ebrua ry 2006 and sepa rate d in April 2006 but that the t wo got along well af ter the se paration. Toward the e nd of May 20 06 , a pp e lla nt b e g an ta

kin g A. J. to c hurc h and of te n ba by sat A .J. o n Sund ay

a ft e rn oo ns wh ile A. J.’s mot

he r w e nt t o w or

k. A. J. e ve n spe nt Sat

ur da y nig ht wit

h ap pe lla nt o n o ne or

tw o o c c a sio ns . A.J . did not r eturn to a

ppellant’s af

ter July 23, 2006, beca

use she a cted “ kind of skittis h” about g oing ba c k o ve r t

he re and tol d h e r m oth e r t

hat sh e did

no t w ant t o g o b a c k to a

pp e lla nt’ s. A.J . was seven y ear s old at t he ti me of trial and si x at t he ti me of the i ncidents. A.J. testi fied that a pp e lla nt t ou c he d one of he r “p ri vate pa rt s” on fi ve se pa

ra te oc c a sio ns wh ile the y we re a t hi s apar tment on the couch. T he re cord shows that A.J . pointed to where appe l l an t t o u ch ed her and, using h er knee, de monstrated for the jury how he “ rubbed it.” A .J . related what she was we aring duri nge a c h o f t

he inc ide nts and te sti fi e d that a pp e lla nt t ou c he d h e r o uts ide of

he r p anti e s a

nd sh or ts or panties a

nd capr is. A.J . testified that appe llant w as n o t p u t t i n g medicine on he r ra sh when he tou c he d h e r p ri vate pa

rt . A .J. a lso te sti fi e d th a t, w hil e tou c hin g A. J., a pp e lla nt p ull e d h is s ho rt s d o wn an d ex p o s ed h i s p ri v at e pa rt , wh i ch A. J

. d es cr i b ed as “s o m et h i n g ro u n d wi t h l i t t l e r o u n d t h i n gs on the bottom.”3

The outcr y witness, Rebec ca N ickels, also baby sat A.J

. and was like a g randmother to her. N i c k e l s t e s t i f

i e d th a ti nA u g u s t2 0 0 6 , a s s h e w a s a p p l y i n g m e d i c i n e t o a v a g i n a l r a s h o nA

. J. , A

. J. informed her about appellant touching her there

. A.J

. told Nic kels that her “tutu” hurt. Acc ording to Nickels, “tutu” is the wor d A.J . used for her va g ina. At trial, A.J. te s t i fi ed t h at her “tutu” hurt from the r ash and f

rom appe llant rubbing it. Nickels tol d A.J .’s m other about the outcry and, af ter ta lki ngto A. J. a

bo ut wh a t a

pp e lla nt ha d do ne to he r, A. J.’s mot he r we nt to the po lic e statio n to fi le

a re po rt

. A n i n v e s t i g a t o r w i t h C h i l dr e n ’ s P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e s c o n d

u c t e d a f o r e n s i c i n t e r

v i e w o f A

. J. During the investig ation, Detec tive Henr y Lucio attempted to conta ct appellant numerous times, but ap p el l an tav o i d edt h e d et ec t i v e an d fa i l ed t o re tu rn h i s ca l l s . W h en t h e d et ec t i v e f i n al l y go tt h ro u gh t o ap p el l an t , h e i n fo rm edap p el l an tt h at h e h adan arre s twa rr an tan d t o l d ap p el l an twh at t h e c h ar ge was. After the phone conversation, appellant failed to make a rra ng ements to turn himself in as he had ag ree d to do. The jury , as the trier of fac t, w as the sole judge of the cre dibilit y of the witnesses and of the
we i gh t t o b e given to their te stimony . T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 36.13 (V ernon 2007) , art. 38.04 (V ernon 1979) . As such, the jury was fre e to be lieve or disbelieve all or any part of any witness’s testimony

. Sh ar p v . S tat e , 707 S.W .2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). After revie wing

a ll o f t he e vid e nc e us ingthe a

pp lic a ble sta nd ard s o f r e vie w, we ho ld t hat th e e vid e nc e is b oth

le g a lly and fa ctually

sufficie nt t o s u p p o rt t h e jury ’s ver dict on eac h count. Appellant’ s first and sec ond points of error

are overr uled. I I I

. Sentenc ing I n his third point of err or, appellant contends that the tria l court er red by signinga judg ment order ing c onsecutive se ntence s. I n his f o u rt h p o i n t, appellant asse rts that the trial cour t’s oral pronounce ment of the sente nces w as inade quate. The trial court had the authority and the discretion to stack appe llant’s sentenc es. See T EX
. P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 3. 03 (b )( 2) (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08 ); T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 42.08 (V e rn on 20 06 ). Ar

tic le 42 .0 8( a ) p ro vid e s in re le va nt p art : When the same de fenda

nt has bee n convicted in two or more c ases, judg ment and sente nce shall be pronounc ed in ea ch ca se in the same ma nner a s if there had been but one conviction.

. . . [T] he judg ment in the second a nd subsequent4

convictions may

either be that the s entenc e im posed or suspended shall beg in when the judg ment and the se ntence imposed or sus pended in the prec eding conviction has c e a se d to op e rate , or that the se nte nc e imp os e d o r s us pe nd e d s ha ll r un c on c ur re ntl y with the other c ase or

case s, and sentenc e and e x ecution shall be a ccor dingly

. The reporter’s re cord r efle cts that the trial cour t gr anted the State’ s motion t o stack the sentenc es and the n pronounce d in open cour t: “ I here by

assess y our punishment and sente nce you to t e n ye ars ’ c on fi ne me nt in the Te xas De pa rtme nt o f C ri min a l Just ic e . O n e a c h c ount t ho se c ounts [si c] – sentence s on those counts will run consec utively .” W ith all due respe ct to the cour t reporte r,
we a re of the opinion that a “.” wa s m i s p l ac ed i n transcr ibing the r ecor d and that the tria l court’s pr on ounc e me nt w a s a c tua lly the fo llo wi ng : “ I he re by a sse ss your p un ish me nt a nd se nte nc e y ou

to te n y e ars ’ c on fi ne me nt in the Te xas De pa rtme nt of Cr imi na l Just ic e on

e a c h c ount. Th os e c ounts – sentenc es on those counts will run consecutively .” The written judg ment in this case re flec ts that appellant wa s convicted of two counts of i ndece ncy with a child, that punis hment was a ssessed at
c o n f i n e m e n tf o r t e n ye ar s i n C o u n t I an d i nC o u n tII , t h a tt h e s e n t e n c e s w e r e t o r u nc o n s e c u t i v e l y, and spec ifically

that “[t] he sente nce imposed under Count I I of t he indi ctment shall commenc e upon completion of the sentence give n in Count I wher ein t he defenda nt was sentenced to TEN(10) y ear s I nstitut ional Division of the Texas Depar tment Correc tions [ sic].” The trial c ourt’s ora l pronounce ment was c lear and unambig uous. Upon the g ranting of the motion to s tack the se ntence s and the ora l pronounce ment of the sente nces, ap p el l an t was given notice of the punishme n t t o wh i ch he had be en sente nced, inc luding the c umulative sentenc es imposed in this case. Se e W ill iam s v . S

tat e , 6 75 S.W. 2d

75 4, 76 1- 64 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 84 ); see also Ex parte Madding , 70 S.W .3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Contrary to appellant’s a ssertion, the cumulation orde r in the judg ment clea rly and unequivoc ally

indicates that the te n-y ear sentenc e imposed for the conviction i n Count I I of t his case will commence upon appellant’ s completion of the ten-y ear

sentenc e imposed for

the conviction in Count Iof this case , not some oth er unknown conviction and se ntence . Fur thermore , the written c umul at i on order did not impos e a se ntence differ ent or more harsh than that pronounce d in open cour t. See M adding , 7 0 S. W. 3 d

a t 1 3 5

- 3 7

. We hold that the oral pronounc ement orde ring the sentenc es in this case to run con s ec u t i v ely and the written cumulation order in the judgme nt are sufficie ntly specific and ar e valid. See W illiams , 675 S.W .2d at 761-64. Appe llant’s third and four th points of error

are overr uled.5

The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

RI CK STRANGE

JUSTI CE
April 23, 2009 Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.