With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Hall, because the exposure was not alleged in the allegations of the indictment, nor could it be deduced from the face of the indictment. Id. Moreover, the State argues that the court of appeals expressly relied on the facts of the case to reach its conclusion, but the facts of the case are irrelevant in a cognate-pleadings analysis. See Hall, 225 S.W.3d at 535-36. The State also argues that if two offenses are not the same under Block burger, it is presumed that the Legislature intended to allow multiple punishments, absent a clear manifestation of intent to the contrary. See Gonzales v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838, 845 (Tex.Crim.App.2010); see also Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. 180. And the State contends that, if the Legislature’s intent is unclear as to w (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the State argues that indecency with

A: holding in aggravated sexual assault case that testimony regarding psychological trauma suffered by child victim and its physical manifestations properly admitted
B: holding attempted aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer is not a crime in florida
C: holding in a multiplepunishment case that aggravated sexual assault focuses on prohibited conduct
D: holding criminal sexual assault and unlawful restraint included offenses of aggravated crimi nal sexual assault and vacating convictions and sentences on former offenses
C.