Background
While incarcerated in the Bexar County Jail, Anthony Trejo obtained another inmate’s letter addressed to the inmate’s seven-year-old sister, S.F. Trejo used information from that letter to send S.F. his own sexually explicit letter, in which he discussed his interest in young females, described his penis, offered to send photographs, and asked whether she wanted to have sexual intercourse with him after his release.
S.F.’s mother received and read the letter before S.F. did and reported it. Trejo initially denied writing the letter but later admitted during an interview that he wrote and mailed it. A jury convicted him of the third-degree felony of criminal solicitation of a minor based on solicitation of sexual assault of a child, while acquitting him of a separate count involving aggravated sexual assault of a child. After finding a prior-conviction enhancement allegation true, the trial court sentenced Trejo to 12 years in prison.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find that Trejo intended sexual assault of a child to be committed and requested S.F. to engage in conduct that would constitute that offense under the circumstances as he believed them to be. The letter’s sexual content established the requested conduct, while Trejo’s questions about whether S.F. was old enough to talk to men and whether she attended high school or college, his expressed interest in young girls, and his testimony that he believed she could be as young as 16 supported the finding that he believed she was under 17.
The court also held that S.F.’s failure to read the letter did not undermine the conviction. Her mother received and read it, and the solicitation offense was complete when Trejo made the solicitation. Separately, the court modified the written judgment to record Trejo’s plea of “Not True” to the enhancement allegation and the trial court’s finding of “True,” then affirmed the judgment as modified.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s belief that the solicited person was under 17 may be established through the communication’s contents, the defendant’s admissions, and credibility determinations entrusted to the jury.
- S.F.’s failure to read the letter did not defeat the conviction because the criminal-solicitation offense was complete when Trejo made the solicitation.
- An appellate court may modify a criminal judgment to accurately reflect the defendant’s enhancement plea and the trial court’s finding.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that legal-sufficiency review focuses on whether a rational jury could find each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt while viewing the evidence in the verdict’s favor. It also shows how a defendant’s own words can support an inference about the circumstances he believed to exist, including the solicited person’s age.
The opinion further confirms that an appellate court may correct omissions in a written judgment when the record clearly establishes what occurred during the punishment proceeding.