Luis Ruben Islas Martinez v. State, 452 S.W.3d 874

IslasMartinez was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child by contact and appealed the conviction and sentence.
The victim, E.R., was about twelve or thirteen and lived with IslasMartinez and his wife; she sometimes slept in his bed partly due to family arrangement.
E.R. testified that she and IslasMartinez engaged in sexual activity described as ‘humping’ with their clothes on, including touching of her genitals and breasts.
Mother installed a clock-style hidden video camera; recordings showed E.R. and IslasMartinez in living room and bedroom areas, fully clothed, including interactions and a fall onto a bed.
Other witnesses included two younger sisters who corroborated seeing E.R. with IslasMartinez in bed, and the detective’s interviews with E.R.; defense denied improper conduct.
The trial court sentenced IslasMartinez to eight years in prison and a $4,000 fine; the judgment did not reflect the fine, prompting a post-verdict modification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is contact under § 22.021 sufficient through clothing?	IslasMartinez argues contact requires flesh-to-flesh touching.	IslasMartinez contends contact must be flesh-to-flesh and through clothing is insufficient.	Contact may occur through clothing; evidence supports guilt.
Was the evidence sufficient given alleged credibility issues and lack of direct sex act?	IslasMartinez contends the evidence was unreliable and exculpatory.	State claims victim testimony alone suffices and recordings corroborate.	Evidence, including victim testimony and recordings, proves beyond a reasonable doubt.
Did counsel’s alleged failure to discuss the video recordings render performance ineffective?	Counsel’s failure to review recordings could have changed strategy or plea.	Record shows counsel did discuss the recordings; no proven ineffective assistance.	Appellant failed to overcome the presumption of effective assistance; issue rejected.
Should the judgment be corrected to reflect the orally pronounced fine?	Fine of $4,000 was pronounced but not reflected in the written judgment.	N/A	Judgment modified to reflect a $4,000 fine; affirmed as modified.

Miles v. State, 247 S.W.2d 898 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952) (touching may occur through clothing; statute does not require flesh-to-flesh contact)
Resnick v. State, 574 S.W.2d 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (touching defined by ordinary meaning; contact through clothing permitted)
Cagle v. State, 976 S.W.2d 879 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1998) (contact includes clothing; ordinary meaning of contact applies)
Rodda v. State, 926 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996) (penetration/sexual contact may occur without bare skin contact)
Miller v. State, 33 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (preserves construction of undefined terms in statute post-amendment)