Edwin Andrew DeGraff v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 64th District Court of Hale County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-08-0175-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
NOVEMBER 23, 2009
______________________________
EDWIN DEGRAFF,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B16020-0505; HON. ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
In one issue, appellant Edwin DeGraff appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual
assault of a child by challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence. We find the
evidence sufficient and affirm the judgment.
The pertinent standard of review is explained in Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006) and its progeny. We refer the parties to them.
Next, appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault by intentionally and
knowingly causing the penetration of the female sexual organ of his nine-year-old daughter
by his finger. See TEX . PENAL CODE ANN . 22.021(a)(2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2009). Appellant
attacks the sufficiency of the evidence illustrating that he penetrated the complainant with
his finger. Furthermore, though he admitted that he touched the child’s vagina with his
hand and acknowledged the impropriety of that act, he denied having committed a criminal
offense. Yet, in that statement he also said that the tips of two fingers “touch[ed] the
interior part of the outside lips but didn’t go inside of them.” So too did he draw a picture
illustrating the relationship between those two fingers and the interior part of the labia
touched.
We have held that the slightest penetration is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Green v. State, 209 S.W.3d 831, 832 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2006, pet. ref’d). Furthermore,
penetration includes pushing aside and reaching beneath a natural fold of skin into an area
of the body not usually exposed even when one is naked. Vernon v. State, 841 S.W.2d
407, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Appellant’s statement and his drawing are sufficient for
a rational trier of fact to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that penetration occurred.
That finding is neither against the great weight of the evidence or otherwise manifestly
unjust.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
