After finding Denver guilty of three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, "the jury assessed punishment at fifty-five years' confinement and a $10,000 fine in each case." Denver v. State, No. 05-14-00817-CR, No. 05-14-00818-CR, No. 05-14-00819-CR, 2016 WL 661034, at *1 (Tex. App. - Dallas Feb. 18, 2016, pet. ref'd.); seeState v. Denver, No. F-1400186-M, F-1262195-M, F-1262196-M (194th Jud. Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty., Tex.).

ort Worth August 31, 2016, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (complaint about trial court instructing defendant not to testify while cross-examining a witness); Gonzales v. State , 499 S.W.3d 502, 504-07 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. ref'd) (judge's questions and comments about pretrial interaction between defendant and some of the jurors); Mendez v. State , No. 04-15-00311-CR, 2016 WL 3030969 *8-10, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 5516 *24-29 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 25, 2016, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (judge's statements to jury regarding when proceedings would likely be concluded) Pitts v. State , No. 05-14-01375-CR, 2016 WL 1270311 *5, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 3373 *16-23 (Tex. App.—Dallas March 31, 2016, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (trial court comment during voir dire: "The State's not required to prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. It's only required that the State prove to exclude all reasonable doubt concerning the Defendant's guilt"); Denver v. State , No. 05-14-00817-CR, 2016 WL 661034 *2-4, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 1723 *4-9 (Tex. App.—Dallas February 18, 2016, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication) (comments during voir dire, including one in which the trial judge misspoke); Perez v. State , No. 05-14-01196-CR, 2016 WL 58810 *1-3, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 15 *1-7 (Tex. App.—Dallas January 5, 2016, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (judicial comment on reasonable doubt in voir dire); Lyne v. State , No. 13-13-00313-CR, 2015 WL 5672692 *3-5, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9713 *10-13 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg September 17, 2015, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (complaint about trial court's curative instructions); Thomas v. State , 470 S.W.3d 577, 592-94 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015), aff'd , 505 S.W.3d 916 (agreeing with statement of venireperson during voir dire); Barfield v. State , 464 S.W.3d 67, 78-80 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. ref'd), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2411, 195 L.Ed.2d 781 (2016) (display of MADD plaque in courtroom); Moore v. State , No. 03-12-00787-CR, 2015 WL 1317205 *6-7, 2015 Tex

ex. App. LEXIS 9822, *8-9 & n.4 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth August 31, 2016, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (complaint about trial court instructing defendant not to testify while cross-examining a witness); Gonzales v. State, 499 S.W.3d 502, 504-07 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. ref'd) (judge's questions and comments about pretrial interaction between defendant and some of the jurors); Mendez v. State, No. 04-15-00311-CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 5516, *24-29 (Tex. App.-San Antonio May 25, 2016, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (judge's statements to jury regarding when proceedings would likely be concluded) Pitts v. State, No. 05-14-01375-CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 3373, *16-23 (Tex. App.-Dallas March 31, 2016, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (trial court comment during voir dire: "The State's not required to prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. It's only required that the State prove to exclude all reasonable doubt concerning the Defendant's guilt"); Denver v. State, No. 05-14-00817-CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 1723, *4-9 (Tex. App.-Dallas February 18, 2016, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication) (comments during voir dire, including one in which the trial judge misspoke); Perez v. State, No. 05-14-01196-CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 15, *1-7 (Tex. App.-Dallas January 5, 2016, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (judicial comment on reasonable doubt in voir dire); Lyne v. State, No. 13-13-00313-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9713, *10-13 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg September 17, 2015, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (complaint about trial court's curative instructions); Thomas v. State, 470 S.W.3d 577, 592-94 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2015), aff'd, 505 S.W.3d 916 (agreeing with statement of venireperson during voir dire); Barfield v. State, 464 S.W.3d 67, 78-80 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2411 (2016) (display of MADD plaque in courtroom); Moore v. State, No. 03-12-00787-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2638, *19-22 (Tex. App.-Austin March 20, 2015, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publicat

) (evidence legally sufficient where victim testified to facts of offense even though she was imprecise about times and dates and there was no corroborating evidence); see also Denver v. State, No. 05-14-00817-CR, 2016 WL 661034, at *6 (Tex. App.-Dallas Feb. 18, 2016, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designation for publication) ("The child's testimony was neither suspect nor inherently unconvicting, and was alone sufficient to support appellant's convictions."). Her testimony concerning when the first vaginal rape occurred was also unequivocal and consistent with what she told Lieutenant Bitner.

SeeTovar, 619 S.W.3d at 792; see also Porter, 2019 WL 3229185, at *3 (concluding trial judge's comments during voir dire did not violate appellant's right to an impartial jury or taint his presumption of innocence where it was otherwise apparent from the review of the record that the trial judge "misspoke"); Denver v. State, No. 05-14-00817-CR, 2016 WL 661034, at *3 (Tex. App.-Dallas Feb. 18, 2016, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding same where trial judge "misspoke" in stating "you must not presume him to be innocent of these charges that he is facing today").

This evidence is sufficient alone to support Mills's conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 38.07; see, e.g., Rodriguez v. State, No. 05-18-01448-CR, 2020 WL 881008, at *4 (Tex. App.-Dallas Feb. 24, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (evidence legally sufficient when victim testified to facts of offense even though she was imprecise about times and dates and there was no corroborating evidence); see also Denver v. State, No. 05-14-00817-CR, 2016 WL 661034, at *6 (Tex. App.-Dallas Feb. 18, 2016, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("The child's testimony was neither suspect nor inherently unconvicting [sic], and was alone sufficient to support appellant's convictions."). In an attempt to cast doubt on C.S.'s allegation, Mills argues that it is implausible that she would not immediately cry out after the assault and points to C.S.'s testimony that she did not like Mills as evidence of bias.

Her testimony that Perez sexually assaulted her twenty times and her description of the abuse was unequivocal, detailed, and sufficient to support the conviction. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. State, No. 05-18-01448-CR, 2020 WL 881008, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 24, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (evidence legally sufficient where victim testified to facts of offense even though she was imprecise about times and dates and there was no corroborating evidence); see also Denver v. State, No. 05-14-00817-CR, 2016 WL 661034, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 18, 2016, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designation for publication) ("The child's testimony was neither suspect nor inherently unconvicting [sic], and was alone sufficient to support appellant's convictions."). Indeed, by returning a guilty verdict, we must infer that the jury believed S.L.'s testimony regarding Perez's sexual abuse.

In light of the evidence and argument which highlighted the complainant's credibility to the jury, as well as the jury's role in weighing a witness's credibility, we conclude appellant was not harmed by the alleged bolstering and any error by the trial court in overruling the objection was harmless. See Denver v. State, No. 05-14-00817-CR, 2016 WL 661034, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 18, 2016, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designate for publication) (alleged bolstering did not harm appellant). We overrule appellant's second issue.