Opinion
No. 05-08-00574-CR
Opinion Filed May 26, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F04-26811-MI.
Before Justices MOSELEY, O'NEILL, and MURPHY.
OPINION
A jury convicted Robert David Patton of attempted aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years and assessed punishment at six years' imprisonment. In a single issue, appellant contends the evidence is legally insufficient because it does not show he committed acts amounting to more than mere preparation to commit the offense. We affirm the trial court's judgment. In reviewing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Vodochodsky v. State, 158 S.W.3d 502, 509 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). The standard is the same for both direct and circumstantial evidence cases. See Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608, 613 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); Bates v. State, 155 S.W.3d 212, 215 (Tex.App. -Dallas 2004, no pet.). We review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume the trier of fact resolved conflicts in the testimony, weighed the evidence, and drew reasonable inferences in a manner that supports the verdict. See Rollerson v. State, 227 S.W.3d 718, 724 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had the specific intent to commit the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and that he committed an act amounting to more than mere preparation that tended but failed to effect the commission of the offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 15.01(a), 22.021(a)(1)(B) (Vernon 2003 Supp. 2008). Appellant contends the evidence is legally insufficient because the State failed to prove he went further than "mere preparation" or committed an act going beyond "mere preparation." Appellant admits he arrived at an apartment complex in Garland with condoms, personal lubricant, and some children's clothing, but argues this is no more than "simple preparation" because he did not actually meet with anyone at the apartment complex. The State responds that the evidence is sufficient to show appellant committed the offense. The jury heard testimony from five Garland, Texas police officers who stated appellant conducted numerous "chat" sessions with "Stacie Kirkpatrick" from June 25, 2004 to June 29, 2004, in which he solicited sex with Stacie's ten-year-old daughter "Kimmy." Appellant met Stacie on the Internet in a chat room entitled "Daughters on Cam." Appellant did not know that "Stacie" was an online profile for Garland Police Officer Bruce Marshall, an undercover officer in the Internet Crimes Against Children Unit. Appellant and Stacie exchanged instant messages and email in which appellant expressed his desire to "teach" Kimmy. Appellant made many references to Kimmy's age and how he would be "gentle and patient" when having sex with her. Appellant sent pictures to Stacie over the Internet that included images of bestiality, pornography, and child pornography, as well as a photograph of himself. Appellant made arrangements to drive from his home in Round Rock, Texas to Stacie's apartment in Garland, Texas to have sex with Kimmy. Appellant told Stacie he was bringing "prizes" for Kimmy, and that because Kimmy liked the character SpongeBob SquarePants, he would bring her a SpongeBob SquarePants T-shirt and panties. On June 30, 2004, appellant drove from his home to the apartment complex, a trip that took three-and-one-half hours. Appellant arrived at the designated meeting place, the mailboxes at the back of the complex, but immediately left and drove to a nearby fast-food restaurant. He called Stacie on his cell phone to confirm the meeting place. After receiving confirmation, appellant drove back to the apartment complex and parked near the mailboxes, where he was arrested by several officers. During an inventory search of appellant's vehicle, officers found several items appellant mentioned in messages to Stacie that he would bring with him, including two packages of anal beads, one butt plug, several packages of condoms, a jar of "Slick" personal lubricant, a Target shopping bag that contained one SpongeBob SquarePants T-shirt and a three-pack SpongeBob SquarePants girl's panties, one Dell laptop computer, several computer disks, an identification card in appellant's name, and written directions and a map to Stacie's apartment in Garland. Transcripts of the chat sessions, instant messages, emails, and telephone calls between appellant and Stacie were shown to the jury, as was a videotape of appellant's arrival at the apartment and his arrest. In a case where the charge is attempted sexual assault, intent may be inferred from the accused's actions, words, and conduct. See Lindsey v. State, 764 S.W.2d 376, 378 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1989, no pet.). From the transcripts of appellant's online communications with Stacie and his three-and-a-half-hour drive from his home to the agreed-upon meeting place, the jury could reasonably infer that appellant had the specific intent to engage in sexual intercourse with a child whom he believed to be ten years old. See Chen v. State, 42 S.W.3d 926, 930 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) (evidence sufficient to support conviction for attempted sexual assault of a child where defendant solicited thirteen-year-old "Julie" for sexual activity and arranged to meet her at an agreed-up location.). We conclude the evidence presented at trial, reviewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient for the trier of fact to reasonably conclude that appellant was guilty of attempted aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Rollerson, 227 S.W.3d at 724; Chen v. State, 42 S.W.3d at 930. We resolve appellant's sole issue against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.