IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
JULY 3, 2002
______________________________JOSE GUERRERO,
Appellant
v.
EMMA FLORES,
Appellee _________________________________
FROM THE 69TH DISTRICT COURT OF MOORE COUNTY;
NO. 00-83; HON. RON ENNS, PRESIDING _______________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and JOHNSON, JJ.
Pending before the court is the appeal of Jose Guerrero from what purported to be a final order. Since he filed the notice of appeal, however, the trial court timely granted a new trial, as confirmed by Guerrero via letter addressed to this court and dated July 1, 2002. In that letter, he also represented that the proceeding should be dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Because a new trial has been granted and this circumstance vitiates the finality of the order from which appeal was taken, we conclude that our jurisdiction over the cause is non-existent.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Since appellant acquiesces in this, no motions for rehearing will be entertained and mandate shall issue immediately.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
0; Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B16020-0505; HON. ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
In one issue, appellant Edwin DeGraff appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child by challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence. We find the evidence sufficient and affirm the judgment.
The pertinent standard of review is explained in Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) and its progeny. We refer the parties to them.
Next, appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault by intentionally and knowingly causing the penetration of the female sexual organ of his nine-year-old daughter by his finger. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 22.021(a)(2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2009). Appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence illustrating that he penetrated the complainant with his finger. Furthermore, though he admitted that he touched the child’s vagina with his hand and acknowledged the impropriety of that act, he denied having committed a criminal offense. Yet, in that statement he also said that the tips of two fingers “touch[ed] the interior part of the outside lips but didn’t go inside of them.” So too did he draw a picture illustrating the relationship between those two fingers and the interior part of the labia touched.
We have held that the slightest penetration is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Green v. State, 209 S.W.3d 831, 832 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2006, pet. ref’d). Furthermore, penetration includes pushing aside and reaching beneath a natural fold of skin into an area of the body not usually exposed even when one is naked. Vernon v. State, 841 S.W.2d 407, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Appellant’s statement and his drawing are sufficient for a rational trier of fact to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that penetration occurred. That finding is neither against the great weight of the evidence or otherwise manifestly unjust.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.