Cleofas Alejandro Ruiz v. State, 05-16-00970-CR

Defendant Cleofas Ruiz was convicted by a bench trial of continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 and sentenced to 27 years’ imprisonment; appeal followed.
Victim B.O. (15 at trial) testified to repeated sexual touching and some oral contact beginning around age 6–7 and continuing for years, occurring multiple nights per week before she turned 14.
Forensic interviewer (Children’s Advocacy Center) recorded a consistent disclosure describing repeated touching, dressing the child in adult clothes and coerced sexualized posing, and an instance where defendant’s penis contacted the child’s mouth.
Police recorded a 2.5-hour custodial interview after reading Miranda/article 38.22 warnings; defendant read the warnings aloud, initialed the five statutory rights, spoke at length, and later wrote an apology/confession letter describing repeated ‘‘accidental’’ touching.
Defense attacked victim credibility (prior tendency to fabricate when younger; testimony by family members about reputation for untruthfulness) and argued procedural defects in waiver (defendant did not initial certain waiver blanks and did not orally say ‘‘I waive’’).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of custodial statements (Miranda / art. 38.22 waiver)	State: video shows warnings given, defendant understood rights, voluntarily spoke, and therefore impliedly waived — statements admissible.	Ruiz: he never waived; failing to initial three waiver blanks and not verbally saying he waived amounted to an express refusal/not a waiver.	Court: Waiver may be implied; totality shows knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver (read warnings aloud, initialed five rights, spoke freely, did not ask for counsel) — statements admissible.
Sufficiency of evidence for continuous sexual abuse	State: victim’s testimony alone suffices; corroborating evidence and defendant’s admissions support conviction.	Ruiz: victim lacked credibility (reputation for lying), inconsistencies in statements, and no independent verification of allegations.	Court: Viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a rational factfinder could find two or more acts over 30+ days beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (an accused who received and understood Miranda warnings and then makes an uncoerced statement waives the right to remain silent)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence must allow a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Leza v. State, 351 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (State bears preponderance burden to prove Miranda/art. 38.22 waiver; totality-of-circumstances analysis)
Joseph v. State, 309 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (waiver need not be written or oral; can be inferred from conduct)
Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (appellate court defers to factfinder on credibility and weight of evidence)
Winegarner v. State, 235 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Cameron v. State, 241 S.W.3d 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (review standard for admissibility)
Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (trial-court rulings upheld if within zone of reasonable disagreement)
Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (factfinder resolves conflicting testimony; appellate court will not substitute its judgment)