The court distinguished the single act in Patterson from the facts surrounding Maldonado, finding that there were many “acts of both contact and penetration” that occurred over a matter of years. The court went further in analyzing and distinguishing Aekins v. State, 447 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. Crom. App. 2014), explaining that that case held double jeopardy “barred multiple convictions that were based on a single continuous act.”Upholding Maldonado’s conviction, the court found support in Loving v. State, 401 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).