Archie Lee Becks v. State ( 2015 )

NUMBER 13-14-00037-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
ARCHIE LEE BECKS, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 40th District Court
of Ellis County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
Appellant Archie Lee Becks appeals from a judgment rendered by the 40th District
Court of Ellis County, Texas.1 The jury found Becks guilty of aggravated sexual assault
1This case is before the Court on transfer from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco pursuant to a
docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001
(West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.).
of a child and sentenced him to 60 years in prison. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §
22.021(a)(1)(B)(i) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). Becks raises one issue on
appeal challenging the legal sufficiency of the jury’s findings. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND2
At trial, “Angelica”3 testified that she was nine years old when Becks began to
touch her in a way that made her feel uncomfortable. Becks touched her excessively
and would rub her legs, near her vaginal area. He would watch her while bathing and
while she got dressed. Becks’s conduct worsened, and he began entering Angelica’s
room at night and rubbing her buttocks.
By the time she was thirteen, Angelica testified that Becks had “fondled” her. He
attempted to penetrate her vagina with his finger. Angelica testified that Becks’s finger
touched her vagina but did not go into the “hole” and that Becks was moving his finger
around her “hole” because she was moving around.
In his sole issue on appeal, Becks contends that the evidence is legally insufficient
to support the jury’s verdict. Specifically, Becks contends there is no evidence of
penetration of the victim’s sexual organ by his finger as alleged in the indictment. Becks
does not complain about any other elements of proof.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In this legal sufficiency review, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable
2 Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not
recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons
for it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4. (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.).
3 We will refer to the child complainant using the pseudonym that was assigned to her and alleged
in the indictment.
2
to the prosecution to determine whether any rational fact-finder could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Brooks v. State, 323
S.W.3d 893, 898–99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The fact-finder is the exclusive judge of
the facts, the credibility of witnesses, and of the weight to be given testimony. Id. at 899.
We will not re-evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence, but rather we will act
only to ensure that the jury reached a rational decision. Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238,
246 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (en banc). We must resolve any evidentiary inconsistencies
in favor of the judgment. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. Sufficiency of the evidence
should be measured by the elements of the offense as defined by the hypothetically
correct jury charge for the case. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997) (en banc).
III. APPLICABLE LAW
A person commits the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child if he
intentionally or knowingly causes the penetration of the child's sexual organ. TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i). The female sexual organ is a general term that refers to
the entire female genitalia, including both the vagina and the vulva. Everage v. State,
848 S.W.2d 357, 358 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993, no pet.) (per curiam); Aylor v. State, 727
S.W.2d 727, 729–30 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987, pet. ref'd). Evidence of the slightest
penetration is sufficient to uphold a conviction, so long as it is shown beyond a reasonable
doubt. Luna v. State, 515 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).
In Vernon v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals explained that “pushing
aside and reaching beneath a natural fold of skin into an area of the body not usually
3
exposed to view, even in nakedness, is a significant intrusion beyond mere external
contact” and amounts to “penetration” sufficient to sustain a conviction for aggravated
sexual assault of a child. 841 S.W.2d 407, 409–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (en banc).
The Court held that evidence of the defendant's “touching” of the complainant was
sufficient to show “penetration” of the complainant's female sexual organ where the
evidence showed that the contact was “more intrusive than contact with her outer vaginal
lips.” Id. at 409. The court further stated that the term “penetration is fairly susceptible
of an understanding which includes the kind of touching proven in this case, which was
touching of the sexual organ, near the vaginal entrance.” See id. at 409–10.
IV. DISCUSSION
Becks’s contention that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support his
conviction only addressed Angelica’s testimony regarding the first time Becks touched
her vagina but did not penetrate her vaginal canal.4 However, because the statute does
not require vaginal penetration, Angelica’s testimony that Becks was moving his finger
around her “hole” is sufficient. See id. at 409 (“[T]actile contact beneath the fold of
complainant's external genitalia amounts to penetration within the meaning of the
Aggravated Sexual Assault statute, since vaginal penetration is not required, but only
penetration of the ‘female sexual organ.’”). The State did not have to prove that Becks’s
finger entered Angelica’s vagina in order to convict him for the aggravated sexual assault
of a child. See id; Everage, 848 S.W.2d at 358.
Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier
4 Appellee, the State of Texas, notes that Angelica did testify that Becks penetrated her vagina
with his finger in other instances.
4
of fact could have found that Becks penetrated the sexual organ of a child with his finger
beyond a reasonable doubt. See id; Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 898–99.
We overrule Becks’s sole issue.
V. CONCLUSION
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
28th day of May, 2015.
5