offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const, amends. V, XIV. The double jeopardy clause embodies three essential guarantees: (1) it protects against a successive prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). Article I, section 14 of the Texas Constitution provides the same double jeopardy protections as the United States Constitution. Tex. Const. art. I, § 14; Stephens v. State, 806 S.W.2d 812, 814-15 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). As discussed above, Hiatt was indicted for the following offenses: (1) aggravated sexual assau aco 2000, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>); Hutchins v. State, 992 S.W.2d 629, 633
holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms holding even though appellants two acts may have been committed during the same occurrence appellants touching of the victims genitals with his finger was a separate and distinct criminal act from touching her genitals with his penis holding defendants double jeopardy rights were not violated by his punishment for both aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child because the evidence at trial showed he committed two separate acts  penetrating the victims sexual organ with his finger and touching her genitals with his tongue  that constituted two separate offenses holding extraneous acts of touching of complainant and her friend were admissible in indecency with a child prosecution because defendants charged conduct was as consistent with accident as with a specific lascivious intent holding unanimity requirement not violated when charge stated two separate counts with two separate and distinct offenses in each case