With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and presented a risk that [defendant] was required to guard against.... Under these facts, we hold the conduct and harm were not foreseeable.... ”). Even assuming that information about Love’s prior convictions, if known, would have torpedoed Love’s employment with Whatabur-ger, his criminal acts of selling cocaine and failing to pay child support are different from an aggravated robbery — neither crime inherently requires violence or theft, the two essential ingredients of an aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (Vernon 2003) (defining aggravated robbery as robbery in which person either causes serious bodily injury or uses or exhibits deadly weapon) and § 29.02 (def two DWI convictions did not make his sexual assault foreseeable), Houser, 968 S.W.2d at 545 (<HOLDING>), and Frith v. Fairview Baptist Church, No.

A: holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse
B: holding that all convictions under wisconsin sexual assault statute were not per se convictions for crimes of violence
C: holding that mechanics three prior forgery convictions did not present foreseeable risk that he would commit sexual assault
D: holding that merger did not apply because sexual assault was not a lesser included offense of seconddegree kidnapping involving sexual assault
C.