shows that the same types of specific conduct that are described in section 22.021(a)(1)(B) are described in section 22.011(a)(2). Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.011(a)(2), 22.021(a)(1)(B) (Vernon Supp.2004-05). In addition, the acts in section 22.011(a)(2) are described in separate sections, which are separated by the word “or,” the same as the acts in section 22.021(a)(1)(B). See Vick, 991 S.W.2d at 832-33. Thus, we conclude that the different types of conduct described in section 22.011(a)(2) constitute separate offenses even if the different types of conduct occur in the same transaction except in cases in which one of the acts would necessarily be subsumed by another, such as contact being subsumed by penetration. See Patterson, 152 S.W.3d at 92; Hendrix, 150 S.W.3d at 847-48 (<HOLDING>). Here, counts two through five each alleged
holding that a jury instruction listing additional modes of sexual penetration than those listed in the information did not impermissibly amend the charge of sexual assault becausein part the added modes of sexual penetration did not change the applicable statute sentence or level of offense holding that charges submitting instances of penetration and contact occurring in the same transaction did not deprive the appellant of a unanimous verdict because all of the jurors who believed there was penetration necessarily also believed that antecedent contact had occurred holding that the defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating that the improper juror contact occurred and only if the contact is established must the government demonstrate absence of prejudice holding that medical report was not material for brady purposes where report at best showed lack of vaginal penetration of sexual abuse victim penetration was not necessary for conviction of sexual abuse of a minor under iowa law holding that penetration of anus and penetration of sexual organ although found in same subsection of section 22021a1b are separate offenses