In Ochoa v. State, 955 S.W.2d 389 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997), aff'd, 982 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), the San Antonio court found the trial court should have instructed the jury on the law of lesser-included offenses; as a result, the jury returned guilty verdicts both for aggravated sexual assault of a child and for indecency with a child. Reasoning that since the State proved all the elements of aggravated sexual assault of a child, the appellate court found that the State had also necessarily proved the elements of indecency with a child: "if the trial court had properly instructed the jury on lesser included offenses, the only change to the conviction would have been the absence of the conviction for indecency with a child. For these reasons, we find that the jury found Appellant guilty of the greater offense of aggravated sexual assault and not of the lesser offense of indecency with a child." The Court of Criminal Appeals noted that the State presented evidence of only one sexual offense committed by the appellant on the date in question, and then stated, "either the jury could conclude penetration actually occurred and convicted appellant of aggravated sexual assault, or they could conclude only contact occurred with intent to arouse and gratify sexual desire and convicted appellant of the lesser included offense of indecency with a child." Id. In Ochoa, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the appellate court's opinion vacating the appellant's conviction and sentence for indecency with a child. Id. The Court of criminal appeals held that evidence that the child said the appellant "put his thing in my butt" was subject to two different interpretations: "From this evidence, the jury could have believed either that appellant penetrated the child or that he contacted her with the intent to arouse and gratify his desire." Id. at 907. Therefore, the court concluded, the jury could have convicted the appellant of either offense--aggravated sexual assault or indecency with a child--under this evidence. Id. In Ochoa v. State, the testimony at trial was that Ochoa touched the victim only once on a particular day. Id. at 906. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that the evidence indicated that Ochoa committed only one offense on that date and that the trial court should not have submitted the case to the jury in such a manner that would allow the jury to convict Ochoa twice for the same offense. Id. at 908. Ochoa is distinguishable from our case. The jury convicted Ochoa for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child, both alleged to have occurred on June 16, 1994. Id. at 905. In Ochoa, one witness testified that the victim called her on June 16, 1994, and told her that Ochoa "put his thing in her butt." Id. at 905-06. No other evidence was presented showing that Ochoa touched the victim more than one time on June 16, 1994. Id. The Court of criminal appeals looked to the evidence adduced at trial to determine whether the appellant had committed two separate offenses or only one. 982 S.W.2d at 908. The testimony at trial was that Ochoa touched the victim only once on a particular day. Id. at 906. The court held that the evidence indicated that Ochoa committed only one offense on that date and that the trial court should not have submitted the case to the jury in such a manner that would allow the jury to convict Ochoa twice for the same offense. Id. at 908.