A Cobb County jury convicted William Tony Wilson of three counts of child molestation Counts 2, 6, and 7, and one count each of aggravated child molestation Count 4 and aggravated sexual battery Count 8 and acquitted him of one count each of child molestation Count 1, aggravated child molestation Count 3, and aggravated sexual battery Count 5.1 On appeal, Wilson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to his convictions on Counts 6, 7, and 8 and argues that his trial counsel was ineffective. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. In his first enumerated error, Wilson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to the convictions related to S. W. for child molestation and aggravated sexual battery, but we find the evidence sufficient in accordance with Jackson v. Virginia .2 On appeal from his criminal convictions, Wilson no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence, and we construe the evidence in a light favorable to the jury’s verdict. We neither weigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses, but merely determine whether the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find all the essential elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.3 The record shows that S. W., who was eighteen years old at the time of trial, testified that between the ages of seven and fourteen, Wilson molested her, putting his hand and his penis into her vagina and touching her all over her body. Karen Nash, the director of services at a children’s advocacy center, testified that she saw S. W. one time; that S. W. told her that Wilson touched her genital areas, putting his penis between her legs four times a week until she was 14 years old; and that S. W. told her she would feel wet between her legs during these encounters. Investigator Richard Whitaker of the Cobb County Police Department testified that he became involved in this case after receiving a phone call from a doctor regarding the other victim, M. I.4 During his investigation, Whitaker recorded interviews with S. W. and M. I., which were played for the jury.5
In Wilson’s one-paragraph argument wherein he fails to cite to the record or to authority, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions because S. W. testified that the abuse occurred while they lived in a green house and the evidence shows that during that time period, they lived in a white house and because S. W. was impeached concerning a different rape allegation. Wilson’s contentions are nothing more than a challenge to S. W.’s credibility, and this court does not assess witness credibility.6 The credibility of witnesses is a matter solely within the jury’s province.7 Here, “S. W. testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination by Wilson, thereby giving the jury the opportunity to judge her demeanor and credibility during that examination.”8 Accordingly, Wilson’s contention that S. W. was not credible does not warrant the reversal of his convictions.
