Raul Alvarez Prado v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________
NO. 09-24-00440-CR
NO. 09-24-00441-CR
NO. 09-24-00442-CR
________________

RAUL ALVAREZ PRADO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. F21-38021, F21-38022, F21-38023
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Raul Alvarez Prado of Sexual Assault of a Child, and two

counts of Indecency with a Child by Sexual Contact, all second-degree felonies. Tex

Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.011(a)(2), (f); 21.11(a), (d). The jury assessed Prado’s

punishment at twenty years of incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal

1
Justice on each count. The trial court sentenced Prado accordingly and ordered each

sentence to be served consecutively.

In a single issue, Prado challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support

his convictions. We affirm as modified.

Background

Larry

Larry testified that he is Prado’s son and older brother to Ruth, the victim in

this case. 1 Larry and Ruth lived in Mexico with his maternal grandparents until he

was six years old. At that time, he and Ruth were sent to the United States to live

with their parents, Mother and Prado. According to Larry, he and his sister did not

have a relationship with their parents prior to their arrival in the United States. Larry,

Ruth and their parents lived in China, Texas for about six or seven years before

moving to Nome, Texas. Larry has four younger siblings, Ruth, Lonnie, Jill, and

Rita. Larry testified that Jill and Rita are much younger than his other siblings. When

the family moved to Nome, Mother and Prado slept in one room, the boys in another

1We refer to the victim and her family members by pseudonyms. See Tex.

Const. art. I, § 30(a)(1) (granting crime victims “the right to be treated with fairness
and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice
process”).
2
room and the girls in another. In the girl’s room, two beds were shared between three

girls.

Larry described the family dynamics, stating that when he and Ruth lived with

their grandparents in Mexico, his grandparents cared for them, fed them, and made

sure they went to school. With his parents, he never felt a complete part of the family.

You know, you wish you had that love and affection from your mom
and dad, like, hey, you know, pretty much take us under their wing, you
know, I mean, as a parent and learn how to, you know, like putting in
school, which we did go to school and all. But the love and affection
was not there; and that’s something that we kind of, like, cried for, you
know.

Mother cleaned houses and Prado worked on a ranch in China, Texas, until he

had hernia surgery and was no longer able to work. After that, Prado was at home

all the time, and Larry began to support the family financially at age fifteen. Larry

testified that his father “mistreated” his children and that he would “hit us, me and

my sister and my two siblings at the time.” This abuse started when they first arrived

from Mexico. Larry believed that Mother was afraid of Prado and would not

intervene to stop the abuse. According to Larry, he and Ruth received the worst

abuse because they did not have parental “affection[,]” and Prado used to hit the

children with “cables and stuff” to the point that the children could not attend school

some days. The abuse continued until adulthood when Larry got married. He

testified the whole household lived in fear of Prado. Prado would threaten the

3
children that if they spoke up, they would be deported. According to Larry, Prado

attempted to sexually assault him when he was about eight or nine years old.

When Ruth was about sixteen years old, Larry noticed a difference in the way

Prado treated her. According to Larry, Prado would take Ruth out to teach her how

to drive in the evenings. Prado and Ruth would stay out all night and sometimes

come home around “5:00, 6:00 in the morning[.]” Other times, Prado would ask

Ruth to come in the bedroom and “‘[m]assage his leg,’ or something because he had

cramps.” Larry testified that Prado would ask all the children to do this, but “[h]er

more often than any of us.” Larry and Ruth worked together at a pharmacy until their

schedules differed, and Larry drove when they went to work together because Ruth

did not know how to drive. Prado was very protective of Ruth, showing up to her

work before her shift was over and waiting on her. At that time, Larry noticed

changes in the relationship between Prado and Mother; they were not as affectionate

and were more like roommates, sleeping in different beds. When Prado returned

from “drives” with Ruth, Mother appeared “jealous.” When Ruth told him about the

sexual abuse, he had “flashbacks” to their childhood and recalled strange things

between Ruth and Prado, in which Prado treated Ruth like his wife. Eventually, with

help from a family friend, Larry facilitated his family’s leaving Prado, but

eventually, Mother and Lonnie returned to live with Prado.

4
During cross-examination, Larry admitted he never heard any noises from the

bedroom when Prado was in there with Ruth, but he testified that he observed Prado

inappropriately touch her, although he later testified, he saw nothing.

Rita

Rita is Larry and Ruth’s younger sister. Rita testified Prado was a “bad father.

He was mean.” She detailed several instances of physical abuse directed at her and

her siblings, including Ruth. She testified about one instance when Prado told her

that he wanted to kill her sister Jill, chop up her body, and feed her to her siblings.

Rita was not allowed to have a life outside of school and home. After Ruth told Larry

about the sexual abuse, Rita was instructed by her siblings to leave her parents’

home. She testified that after she found out about the sexual abuse, things she had

observed in the past “clicked[.]” She recalled her father bringing Ruth alone into his

bedroom at night, where she would stay for almost an hour. She felt that Prado was

always nicer to Ruth in some ways. For example, she stated that if she or her other

siblings did not clean the bathroom correctly, Prado would beat them, but with Ruth

he “laughed it off[.]” She recalled other times when Prado took Ruth out to “the back

roads” at night to teach her how to drive, and they always came home intoxicated.

Ruth also had several unexplained physical ailments including pains in her stomach.

5
She described Ruth as frail and thin, and she thought Ruth may have had an eating

disorder.

Jill

Jill is Prado’s daughter and Ruth’s younger sister. Jill testified regarding her

childhood and various homes that the family lived in while she was growing up. Jill

testified she did not have “much of a relationship” with her father, and that it was

built off “fear [and] anger.” Prado told his children he would rather that they be

scared of him than to love him. She described her father’s abuse starting when she

was in preschool. She testified Prado would beat Ruth if she wore makeup. She

recalled occasions when Prado made sexual advances toward her or her sister during

which he touched their breasts:

The kitchen was most of the place because that’s where he spent most
of his time at. Okay. So, he would call us over, like, “Hey, come here;
I want to talk to you,” and stuff. And then he would be sitting in this
chair, you know, the main chair. This is the kitchen table, whatever.

[…]

And then he would call us. And then he’ll grab us like this (indicating),
and then he would have his hand under you like this (indicating). But I
would try to, like, hold my hands, my fists really close to me, so he
won’t go, like, down. So, he wouldn’t go up, you know. But there was
times he obviously, like, went up. But we learned if we kept our hands,
like, really close to ourselves, that he can’t manage to go up. But he
would try to, like, move you, like, come on, like, you know, move you.
Or he would try to act like he was getting milk from us, like, he would

6
be like, “Just give me milk” and he’ll make like these noises, like he
was reaching like that -- this is me right here --

Jill explained that when Prado’s hands would “come up” he would actually touch

her breasts. She recalled Ruth’s appearing “sick” but doctors could not find anything

wrong with her. Although she was young, she remembered thinking it was “weird”

when Ruth would go into Prado’s bedroom at night. Whenever Jill would enter the

room, she would always see Prado and Ruth lying on the bed under the covers or

Ruth behind Prado giving him a massage. Jill left the household when she was

twenty years old, after finding out that Prado sexually abused Ruth.

Anna Maria Lagos Escobar

Anna Maria Lagos Escobar is a pharmacist who previously worked with Ruth

at Walgreens. Escobar and Ruth developed a friendship, and Ruth began to confide

in her. She testified Ruth and her family were “terrified” of Prado. She recalled how

Prado and Mother would wait on Ruth every day for an hour before her shift ended

at the pharmacy. She stated that as she and Ruth became closer, Ruth told her about

physical abuse at home. She described Ruth as “tiny and skinny” and that she looked

like a fourteen-year-old, not a twenty-six-year-old. One day, Larry and Ruth

approached Escobar and asked her to give Prado a letter when he arrived later that

day at the pharmacy to pick up Ruth. Ruth told Escobar that she planned to leave

through the back of the pharmacy because “[Prado’s] really going to hurt me if he

7
knows that I talked.” Mother arrived at the pharmacy first, and when Ruth and Larry

told Mother, she responded, “Are you sure that this is true?” According to Escobar,

Mother left with Ruth and Larry but went back to Prado that night. When Escobar

gave the letter to Prado, he read it and stated, “You know that this is not true,

right[?]” According to Escobar, Prado displayed “zero emotion” and drove away.

Escobar testified Ruth is different since leaving Prado’s house; she is doing better,

but her anxiety has returned due to the legal proceedings.

Julie Prudhomme

Julie Prudhomme is the Clinical Director of the Garth House. Prudhomme

described her educational and professional background and stated that she is a

licensed professional counselor who works with child victims and their family

members. Prudhomme did not counsel the children in this case but reviewed their

statements and the offense reports. She described the concept of grooming and how

it can lead to long-term negative effects into adulthood. She also discussed delayed

outcries and explained how sexual assault, especially by a family member, can be

confusing. She testified that based on her review, Ruth was stuck in a place where

she could not get out.

8
Brenda Garison

Brenda Garison is the Director of Child Abuse and Forensic Services and is a

Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE nurse). She detailed her educational and

professional background and explained the procedures for conducting a SANE

examination, such as the one she conducted on Ruth in June 2021. A copy of her

report was admitted into evidence. Garison recorded the following narrative from

Ruth about the sexual abuse and read it to the jury:

It started when I was 16 years old, my dad, [Prado] has been having sex
with me. I was too scared to tell anyone, I thought I was protecting my
family. My dad would tell me he loved me, not like a daughter but
something more. He told me I was better than my mom. I know I
shouldn’t have but when it started I had written him a letter and he
showed it to my mom and she thinks I’m the one to blame but I was
just confused. He never let us go out. When it first started, I did tell a
friend and the police came out but I was too scared to talk. [We] lived
in a trailer in Hardin County when it started, that’s where the police
came to. He would get me to massage his legs and stuff. The first night
he called me into the bedroom and after I massaged his legs he put my
hand on his penis and ask [sic] me to touch it. He told me not to tell my
mom. After that he started touching on me. Later, he started having sex
with me in the afternoons when he was teaching me to drive. We would
go on a back road and he would “do” it. I didn’t want to tell him no, I
didn’t know what he might do. He told me if I wanted him to stop, he
would but I was afraid he might do it to my younger sister. He told me,
‘you have something your mom doesn’t have’. He used to ask me if I
had ever had sex with anyone else because I didn’t bleed when he had
sex with me. The only time he used a condom was when I worked at a
service station and I could get them there. When I stopped working
there, he stopped using them. He would pull out unless he was super
drunk to keep from getting me pregnant. He would do it on my body or
on the ground; it just depended on what setting we were in. He would

9
always try to keep up with my periods. At first, he would do it in my
anus but that hurt too bad so he stopped. He would put it in my mouth
also.

Garison performed an examination on Ruth but did not observe any signs of

acute or non-acute trauma. Garison did not observe any signs of trauma during her

examination, but she testified none were expected given Ruth’s history.

Ruth

Ruth testified she moved to her parents’ home when she around five years old.

She has two brothers and two sisters, and she is the “second oldest” child. She

recalled that her father was “so strict, always hard-handed[,]…like we wouldn’t do

anything that’s wrong, but to him it was wrong. He would get mad, yell at us, call

us names.” Prado’s abuse escalated to physical abuse when she was about eight years

old. Ruth testified Prado would “find anything on his way…to use to hit us[,]”

including cords, hangers, belts, or his hand. Ruth was afraid of Prado, but to

outsiders, they appeared to be a normal family.

When Ruth was around fifteen years old, Prado’s abuse changed. Prado would

ask Ruth to give him a massage while in his underwear in his bed. At first, he would

be face down and ask Ruth to rub his thighs and legs, that changed one night, when

he was drunk, he turned over and placed her hand on his penis and asked her to

stroke him. Another time, he climbed into the bed Ruth shared with her sisters and

10
touched her inside her underwear including penetrating her vagina with his finger.

He stopped when her mother came into the room, lifted the covers and told him to

leave.

When Ruth turned seventeen, Prado offered to teach her how to drive. Prado

took Ruth to an isolated road, had her lie down in the seat, removed her clothes, and

had intercourse with her. Ruth recalled that she told no one because she was scared.

Ruth did tell her best friend in school, which prompted law enforcement to visit her

home. Ruth lied and told the officers that nothing had happened. After the sexual

assault in the vehicle, the assaults became more frequent, usually on Friday nights.

According to Ruth, later when the family moved to a new house, the sexual assaults

became “more regular[].” During this time, Prado would call Ruth into his bedroom

and abuse her while her mother was cooking, and her siblings were in other rooms.

Ruth would give Prado a “hand job[,]” perform oral sex on him, or they would have

intercourse. This abuse happened several times a week. Prado told Ruth, “I don’t see

you as my daughter. I see you as my wife or a person, you know, my girlfriend[.]”

This sexual relationship continued until she moved out of her parents’ home when

she was twenty-six years old.

The jury found Prado guilty on each charge and sentenced him to twenty

years’ incarceration in the Texas Department Criminal Justice on each count. The

11
trial court sentenced Prado accordingly and ordered each sentence to be served

consecutively. Prado timely appealed.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

In a single issue, Prado challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support

his conviction. Prado argues that “the evidence raised mere allegations and

suspicions of guilt rather than meeting the constitutionally required proof beyond a

reasonable doubt[,]” and that the “quality” of the witnesses testimony, who had great

hatred for Prado, “added little to support the quality of the evidence from witnesses

who were to relate what they observed.”

Standard of Review
The jury is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the evidence and the weight

to be given to that evidence. Metcalf v. State, 597 S.W.3d 847, 855 (Tex. Crim. App.

2020). As such, the jury is responsible for resolving conflicts in the testimony, is

free to believe some, all or none of a witness’s testimony, and may assign as much

or as little weight to a witness’s testimony as it sees fit. Id. Jurors may also draw

reasonable inferences from the evidence. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2007) “[A]n inference is a conclusion reached by considering other facts

and deducing a logical consequence from them.” Id. at 16.

When examining whether a criminal conviction is supported by legally

sufficient evidence, we compare the evidence to the elements of the offense as
12
defined by a hypothetically correct charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240

(Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We consider all the evidence, viewed in the light most

favorable to the verdict, along with the inferences that could reasonably be drawn

from the evidence. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. “Direct and circumstantial evidence

are treated equally: ‘Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in

establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient

to establish guilt.’” Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

(quoting Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13). We do not assess the credibility of the evidence,

reweigh the evidence, nor substitute our judgment for that of the jury. See Williams

v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citation omitted).

The evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction if any rational trier

of fact could have found each of the essential elements of the offense beyond a

reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979). “Each fact

need not point directly and independently to a defendant’s guilt, as long as the

cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the

conviction.” Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)

(citation omitted); see also Garcia v. State, 667 S.W.3d 756, 761–62 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2023) (citation omitted) (“A proper review of evidentiary sufficiency considers

the cumulative force of the evidence.”).

13
Texas Penal Code section 22.011 provides that a person commits sexual

assault of a child, a second-degree felony, if he intentionally or knowingly causes

the penetration of the sexual organ of a child by any means. See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 22.011(a)(2)(A), (f). Texas Penal Code section 21.11 provides that a person

commits indecency with a child, also a second-degree felony, if that person, with a

child younger than seventeen years old, whether the child is of the same or opposite

sex and regardless of whether the person knows the age of the child at the time of

the offense, engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in

sexual contact. See id. § 22.11(a)(1), (d). Sexual contact under section 21.11 includes

any touching by that person, including touching through clothing, of the anus, breast,

or any part of the genitals of a child; or any touching of any part of the body of a

child, including touching through clothing, with the anus, breast, or any part of the

genitals of a person. Id. at 21.11(c).

The testimony of a child victim, standing alone and without corroboration, is

sufficient to support a conviction for sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. Ann. art. 38.07 (providing that a child’s testimony alone is sufficient to support

a conviction for sexual assault when either the victim informed someone other than

the defendant within one year after the offense allegedly occurred or when the child

14
is under the age of seventeen at the time of the alleged offense); Garcia v. State, 563

S.W.2d 925, 928 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Here, the jury had the benefit of the victim’s testimony and several other

witnesses’ testimonies. The victim, Ruth, testified that she was seventeen or younger

during the assaults and that her father put his finger in her sexual organ, and engaged

in sexual contact with her by having her touch his genitals or by having his genitals

touch her genitals. The SANE nurse provided similar testimony. Ruth testified the

sexual assaults occurred while she was taking driving lessons with her father, or

when they were alone in her father’s bedroom. Ruth’s testimony was sufficient, and

her siblings corroborated her testimony by confirming the circumstances during

which she was alone with Prado. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable

to the verdict and deferring to the jury the responsibility of determining the weight

and credibility of the evidence, we conclude that a reasonable factfinder could have

found Prado guilty of sexual assault of child and two counts of indecency with a

child beyond a reasonable doubt. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.011(a)(2)(A);

21.11(a)(1); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.07(a), (b)(1); Clayton, 235

S.W.3d at 778; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. We overrule Prado’s sole issue.

15
Judgments

While not raised by either party, we note that the judgments do not reflect a

correct assessment of the trial court’s oral pronouncement on punishment.

When a defendant has two or more convictions, the trial court may order that

the sentences run concurrently or consecutively.2 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.

art. 42.08(a). Recommended elements for a valid cumulation order include: (1) the

cause number of the prior conviction; (2) the correct name of the trial court where

the prior conviction was imposed; (3) the date of the prior conviction; (4) the term

of years of the sentence imposed for the prior conviction; and (5) the nature of the

prior conviction. Stokes v. State, 688 S.W.2d 539, 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). The

trial court need not include all five elements in its cumulation order. Id.

At the conclusion of the punishment phase of trial, the trial court stated:

Your sentences have been assessed at 20 years confinement and a fine
of $10,000 in each case. You have committed numerous acts of incest
and criminality for ten years, as shown in this trial. It would not be just
if these sentences were running concurrently. The message that would

2Generally, section 3.03 of the Texas Penal Code requires concurrent
sentences if the State prosecutes the defendant for conduct that arises out of the same
criminal episode when the defendant is prosecuted in a single criminal action. Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 3.03(a). However, Penal Code section 3.03(b) includes several
exceptions to the general rule requiring concurrent sentencing, and the exception
pertinent to Prado’s case addresses defendants who are convicted of sexually
assaulting victims who were younger than 17 when the assault occurred. Id. §
3.03(b)(2).
16
be sent would be if you’re going to abuse a child, abuse as much as you
can because you’ll only be punished as though it was one event.

This was over a term of ten years. These sentences shall run
consecutively with each other, which means you will serve ten years on
-- I presume it will be up to the authorities -- but ten years first in the
earlier Cause No. 21-38021, the sexual assault of a child. When that
term of service of 20 -- I said 10 years -- 20 years confinement, as
assessed by the jury -- when that 20 years confinement is completed,
you will serve the confinement of 20 years as punishment in Cause No.
21-38022, the indecency with a child. And when that is completed, you
will begin and serve the third 20-year sentence of 21-38023 of a second
second-degree felony of indecency with a child.

You should not be able to sexually abuse a child, your own child, over
a decade of time ruling a family and then package these three
convictions and sentences as though it was one event. Each crime --
each time you harm a child should, in all fairness, subject you to a
separate event of punishment and be accountable for each separate
harm that you applied and committed over this child. So, the sentences
shall run consecutively to each other.

The trial court’s judgments state the following in each cause number:

Cause Number F21-38021:

THIS SENTENCE SHALL RUN: CONSECUTIVE (WITH 21-38022
AND 21-38023)

Cause Number F21-38022:

THIS SENTENCE SHALL RUN: CONSECUTIVE

Cause Number F21-38023:

THIS SENTENCE SHALL RUN: CONSECUTIVE

17
“When the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment vary, the

oral pronouncement controls.” Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131, 135 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2002). “A valid cumulation order should be sufficiently specific to allow the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice -- Institutional Division (TDCJ -- ID), to

identify the prior with which the newer conviction is cumulated.” Ex parte San

Migel, 973 S.W.2d 310, 311 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (citation omitted). A

cumulation order that refers only to a cause number is sufficient if the sentencing

order is from the same court. See id.; Hamm v. State, 513 S.W.2d 85, 86 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1974) (citations omitted).

Here, although the sentences are from the same court, the judgments

cumulating the sentences did not include the cause numbers. The record, however,

contains ample information for this Court to reform the trial court’s cumulation

order. An appellate court may modify a cumulation order when the record contains

the necessary data needed for reformation. Banks v. State, 708 S.W.2d 460, 462

(Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Revels v. State, 334 S.W.3d 46, 56 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2008, no pet.). Because this record contains sufficient data to allow for reformation

of the trial court’s cumulation order, we modify the judgments to state:

Cause Number F21-38021:

The Court ORDERS that the sentence in this conviction shall run
consecutively and shall begin before the December 5, 2024 judgment

18
and twenty-year sentence in cause number F21-38022 in the Criminal
District Court of Jefferson County involving Indecency with a Child by
Sexual Contact, and before the December 5, 2024 judgment and
twenty-year sentence in cause number F21-38023 in the Criminal
District Court of Jefferson County involving Indecency with a Child by
Sexual Contact.

Cause Number F21-38022:

The Court ORDERS that the sentence in this conviction shall run
consecutively and shall begin only when the December 5, 2024
judgment and twenty-year sentence in cause number F21-38021 in the
Criminal District Court of Jefferson County involving Sexual Assault
of a Child has ceased to operate, and before the December 5, 2024
judgment and twenty-year sentence in cause number F21-38023 in the
Criminal District Court of Jefferson County involving Indecency with
a Child by Sexual Contact.

Cause Number F21-38023:

The Court ORDERS that the sentence in this conviction shall run
consecutively and shall begin only when the December 5, 2024
judgment and twenty-year sentence in cause number F21-38021 in the
Criminal District Court of Jefferson County involving Sexual Assault
of a Child and the December 5, 2024 judgment and twenty-year
sentence in cause number F21-38022 in the Criminal District Court of
Jefferson County involving Indecency with a Child by Sexual Contact
have ceased to operate.

See Revels, 334 S.W.3d at 56.

19
Conclusion

Having overruled Prado’s sole issue on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s

judgments as modified.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

KENT CHAMBERS
Justice

Submitted on August 8, 2025
Opinion Delivered August 27, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

20