Alejandro Morales Calles v. State, 14-14-00696-CR

Appellant Alejandro Morales Calles was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child for digitally penetrating 10‑year‑old M.G. at his home on July 27, 2012; jury sentenced him to five years imprisonment.
M.G. reported the assault to her father the evening of the incident; police referred her to the Children’s Assessment Center where she described digital penetration.
At trial M.G. testified she moved to a loveseat next to appellant while other children watched a movie; she said appellant put his hands in her pants and used two fingers that moved "back and forth."
Appellant denied the allegations and argued the living‑room layout and presence of five other children made the assault impossible and that M.G. gave inconsistent statements.
The jury credited M.G.’s testimony; on appeal appellant challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding a child complainant’s testimony alone can support conviction and that the jury reasonably resolved credibility conflicts in the State’s favor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Calles)	Held
Legal sufficiency of evidence for aggravated sexual assault of a child	M.G.’s trial testimony (and CAC interview) described intentional digital penetration of a child under 14; that testimony alone can support conviction	Evidence was insufficient because the room layout, appellant’s position, and presence of other children made the assault physically unlikely or impossible	Affirmed — viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Credibility and inconsistencies in complainant’s statements	The jury was entitled to believe M.G. despite minor inconsistencies; credibility is for the jury	Inconsistent statements about a belt, reasons for moving couches, and level of detail create reasonable doubt	Affirmed — inconsistencies went to weight, not legal sufficiency; jury reasonably resolved conflicts in favor of the State

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (apply Jackson standard; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to jury on credibility and weight)
Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (courts do not reweigh evidence in sufficiency review)
Jensen v. State, 66 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (child complainant’s testimony alone can support sexual‑assault conviction)
Newby v. State, 252 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (no medical or physical corroboration required)
Garcia v. State, 563 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (same—victim’s testimony can suffice)
Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (jury decides credibility; appellate court defers)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (presume jury resolved conflicting inferences for prevailing party)
Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (appellate courts must not act as thirteenth juror)