of a child for causing D.H.’s sexual organ to contact and penetrate his anus on or about June 18, 2005 (count one); (2) aggravated sexual assault of a child for penetrating D.H.’s anus with his finger on or about June 18, 2005 (count two); (3) indecency with a child for touching D.H.’s genitals on or about June 18, 2005 (count seven); (4) indecency with a child for causing D.H. to touch part of his genitals on or about June 18, 2005 (count eight); (5) aggravated sexual assault of a child for causing D.H.’s sexual organ to contact and penetrate his anus on or about August 20, 2005 (count three); (6) aggravated sexual assault of a child for penetrating D.H.’s anus with his finger on or about August 20, 2005 (count four); (7) indecency with a child for to pp.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>); Murray v. State, 24 S.W.3d 881, 889
holding that the first charging phrase of section 505 is unconstitutionally vague as applied where it was not clear whether touching a minors genitals through her pants constituted sexual conduct as defined by the statute 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 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 that touching anus and touching genitals are separate offenses under penal code section 2211a1 holding that statute which defined sexual contact as any touching of the anus breast or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person was not vague