No. 05-08-00523-CR
Opinion issued December 22, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court, Grayson County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 056223-336.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices MORRIS and FRANCIS.
Opinion By Justice MORRIS.
A jury convicted Jamie Deontrey Wilson of sexual assault of a child. In a single issue, appellant contends on appeal that the evidence is factually insufficient to support the conviction. We conclude otherwise and affirm.
Factual Background
The complainant, H.L., met appellant in November 2006 when she was fourteen years old and appellant was twenty-one. At trial, H.L., who was then fifteen and pregnant with appellant's child, testified she and appellant had sexual intercourse several times, they loved each other, and they planned H.L.'s pregnancy. During their relationship, appellant bought H.L. a ring, but he later pawned it. H.L. testified appellant was proud that she was his girlfriend and told "lots of people" that he and H.L. were married, but H.L. has never been married to appellant and never told anyone that she and appellant were married. While investigating an alleged sexual assault against H.L. by another man, the police discovered H.L.'s sexual relationship with appellant. After appellant was arrested, H.L. wrote him letters and sometimes signed them "Mrs. Wilson" because she believed the letters could get to appellant that way. She testified that at no time did she believe she and appellant were married. She also testified that although she had a new boyfriend at the time of the trial, she and appellant would still be together had he not been in jail. H.L.'s mother testified she did not know H.L. and appellant were having sex until the police investigated the sexual assault by another man. H.L. told her mother that she and appellant were "just friends," and both H.L. and appellant told the mother that appellant was seventeen or eighteen years old. The mother testified that if she had known appellant was twenty-one years old, she would not have allowed him to be around her daughter. Because H.L. said appellant did not have any place to go, her mother allowed appellant to stay frequently overnight in the backyard on a trampoline. H.L. occasionally stayed outside with appellant on the trampoline. H.L.'s mother testified her daughter has never been married to appellant. Detective Nic Emmons investigated the alleged sexual assault against H.L. by another man. During his interview with H.L., he became aware that she was fourteen years of age and having a sexual relationship with appellant, who was twenty-one years of age. Emmons conducted a videotaped interview with appellant. The videotape was played to the jury. During the interview, appellant stated he knew H.L. was only fourteen years old and admitted he had sexual intercourse with H.L. at least five times. Appellant also stated he was not married to anyone. Two witnesses testified on appellant's behalf. B.M., who is one of H.L.'s friends, testified H.L. and appellant were constantly together. At one point, H.L. ran away from her mother to be with appellant. According to her friend, H.L. talked often about marriage, but she did so with respect to all of her boyfriends. Likewise, H.L. often signed her name using the last name of her boyfriends. B.M. testified she never heard appellant introduce H.L. as his wife. Appellant's mother also testified. She did not know appellant and H.L. were having sex until H.L. became pregnant. H.L. and appellant always went to H.L.'s house because appellant's mother did not allow H.L. to stay overnight in her house. Appellant's mother testified she did not think appellant and H.L. were married, but she believed they would be married someday. Discussion
In his sole issue on appeal, appellant complains the evidence against him is factually insufficient to support his conviction for sexual assault of a child. In a factual sufficiency review, we view all of the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the fact-finder's verdict of guilt was rationally justified. See Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 415 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006); see also Marshall v. State, 210 S.W.3d 618, 625 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 87, 169 L.Ed.2d 66 (2007). Unless the record clearly reveals a different result is appropriate, we must defer to the fact-finder's determination concerning what weight should be given to contradictory testimony. Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). To obtain a conviction for sexual assault of a child, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally or knowingly caused the penetration of the sexual organ of H.L., a child younger than seventeen years of age and not appellant's spouse, by appellant's sexual organ. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(2)(A) (Vernon 2003). Appellant's brief contains no argument alleging the specific elements the State failed to prove in his case. After viewing all the evidence under the proper standard, we conclude it is factually sufficient to support appellant's conviction. We resolve appellant's sole issue against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.