COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00191-CR
LUIS ALBERTO RAMIREZ APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Luis Alberto Ramirez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
to support his convictions for aggravated sexual assault. We affirm.
Appellant was tried before a jury on four counts of aggravated sexual
assault of a child. After both sides had rested and closed, the State waived two
counts and the jury convicted Appellant of the remaining two. Specifically, the
jury found that in Tarrant County, Texas (1) on or about October 15, 2008,
Appellant intentionally or knowingly caused the sexual organ of A.R., a child
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
younger than fourteen years of age who was not Appellant‟s spouse, to contact
his sexual organ; and (2) on or about October 10, 2008, Appellant intentionally or
knowingly caused A.R.‟s sexual organ to contact Appellant‟s mouth. See Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(iii) (Vernon Supp. 2010). Appellant elected
to have the trial court assess his punishment, and the trial court sentenced him to
twenty-five years‟ confinement on each count, to run concurrently.
On appeal, Appellant contends that the evidence is legally and factually
insufficient to support the jury‟s verdicts. Because the court of criminal appeals
has recently overruled Clewis, we review all sufficiency of the evidence claims
under the standard set out in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct.
2781, 2789 (1979). See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App.
2010) (overruling Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App.1996)).
Using that standard, we assess all the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318–19,
99 S. Ct. at 2789; Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 405 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005).
At trial, A.R. testified that Appellant, who was her father‟s cousin, came to
live with her and her family when she was twelve or thirteen years old. She also
testified that sometime before he moved in with them he had taken her to a run-
down trailer where he pulled down her shorts and put his mouth on her private
parts. She further testified that at the end of August 2008, after he had moved in,
he took her to the Valley View Motel and had sex with her. Specifically, she
testified that, while at the motel, Appellant “put his middle part into mine” and that
2
he put his mouth on her female sexual organ. She also testified that he used a
condom, which he told her “broke.” The State introduced in evidence a
registration card from the Valley View Motel in Tarrant County, Texas, showing
that a “Ramirez, Luis Alberto” had rented room number five on August 31, 2008.
A.R. further testified that more than once Appellant had sexual intercourse
and oral sex with her at her home in Mansfield––sometimes in her room while
her younger sisters were sleeping, and sometimes in the living room.
A.R. testified that she eventually became pregnant and that Appellant had
obtained some pregnancy tests and told her how to take them.
After her mother discovered that A.R. was pregnant, A.R. told her that she
believed Appellant was the father. Appellant and A.R.‟s mother took her to an
abortion clinic in Dallas where the pregnancy was terminated.
A.R. testified that Appellant was the father of the baby and that there was
no possibility that anyone else was. She also testified that Appellant moved out
of her family‟s house after the abortion and that all of the sexual acts he
perpetrated on her occurred before she turned fourteen.
A.R.‟s mother, Clara Luna Garcia Ramirez, testified that after she
discovered A.R. was pregnant, Appellant admitted that he had sexually assaulted
and impregnated her. Clara further testified that she and Appellant took A.R. to
an abortion clinic and that Appellant paid for the abortion.
Texas Department of Child and Family Protective Services Investigator Joy
Hallum testified that she spoke with Appellant on the telephone about the
allegations and that Appellant admitted that he had sexual relations with A.R.
3
Specifically, Hallum testified that, “[H]e admitted to me that, yes, he had had a
sexual relationship with her and that he wouldn‟t deny that.”
Fort Worth Police Detective Michael Coursey testified that Appellant
admitted to him during a telephone conversation that he had sexually abused
A.R. Specifically, the detective testified: “Well, I told him what the -- -- what the
investigation was about, that [A.R.] had said they had had sexual intercourse and
that had resulted in her being pregnant. And -- -- and I -- -- and in my report I put
in quotes exactly what he told me. He said, „I‟m not going to lie to you, yes, what
she said.‟”
The jury‟s verdicts are supported by A.R.‟s testimony describing the sexual
assaults by Appellant and her resulting pregnancy. The verdicts are further
supported by not one, not two, but three separate admissions of guilt by
Appellant. Under the appropriate standard of review, the evidence is sufficient to
uphold Appellant‟s conviction on both counts. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319,
99 S. Ct. at 2789; Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 405. Accordingly, we overrule
Appellant‟s sole point and affirm the judgment.
LEE GABRIEL
JUSTICE
PANEL: GARDNER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: January 27, 2011
4