i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 7- 00 88 9- CR Gi lbe rt AG UIRRE , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 218th J udicial District Court, Kar nes County , Texas Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 05 -1 1- 00 12 8- CRK Honora ble Donna S. Ray es, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Febr uary 11, 2009 AFF I RMED Gilbert Aguirre w as convic ted by a jury of ag g ravated assault and w as sentenc ed to seve n y ear s imprisonment. Aguirr e’s se ntence was suspende d, and he w as p l ac ed on seve n y ear s
c omm un ity su pe rv isi on . O n a

pp e a l, A g uir

re c on te nd s: (1) the e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o su

pp or t the jur y ’s ve rd ic t; ( 2) a

pr e -t ri a l id e nti fi c a tio n p ro c e dure wa s im pe rm iss ibl y sug g estive; (3) the trial court e rre d in not probating his fine; and (4) no fac tual basis supported the04

- 07

- 00 88 9- CR

- 2- amount of re stitut ion Ag uirre w as required to pay . On November 5, 2008, we issued an opini on and order setti n g aside the a

mount of restitution contained in the trial cour t’s judgme nt, abating the appea l, and re manding the ca use to the trial cour

t for a he aringto determine a just amount of restitution. The re porter’ s rec ord fr om the hear ing w as filed on De cembe r 2, 2008, and the appea l
wa s re i n s t at ed
. Af

t er ev i d en ce i ns u

p p o rt o f t h e am o u n t o f re s t i tu t i o n wa s ad m i t t ed at t h e h ea ri n g, defe nse counse l ag ree d that restitution s h o u l d b e s et in the amount of $883.00. B eca use the fore g oing disposes of

Ag uirre’ s issue reg arding the restitution amount, we only addre ss Ag uirre’ s oth e r i ssu e s. B ACKG ROUND Jaso n B a l d e r a an d s e v e r a l o f h i s f r i e n d s c r o s s e d t h e s t r e e t t o v i s i t a s c h o o l f r i e n d a t a neig hboring h o u s e . A f

ig h t e r u p te d b e tw e e nB a ld e r a

an d h is f r ie n d s an d

th e p e o p le a t t

h e o the r ho us e . B a lde ra

wa s st a bb e d mu lti ple tim e s a

nd wa s ta ke n to a ho sp ita l f

or tr e a tme nt. S U FF I C I ENC Y OF THE E VI DE NCE I n his fi rs t tw o iss ue s, Aguir re c ha lle ng e s the su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to e sta bli sh : ( 1) his identity as the person who stabbed Ba ldera ; and (2) his use of a dea dly wea pon. I n deter

mining the leg al suffic iency

of the e vidence , we r eview a ll the evidence in the light most favor able to the ve rdict to d e te rm ine wh e the r a

ny ra tio na l tr ie r o f fa c t cou ld have fo un d the e sse nti a l ele me nts of the of fe ns e bey ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 44 3 U. S. 30 7, 31 9 ( 19 79 ); Vo do c ho ds k y v . S tat e , 158 S.W .3d 502, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
. I n conducting a fa ctual suff iciency revie w, this court vie ws a ll o f the e vid e nc e in a ne utr a l li g ht a

nd se ts a sid e the ve rd ic t on ly if : ( 1) the e vid e nc e is s o weak t h at the ver dict is clear ly wrongand manife stly

unjust; or (2) the ver dict is ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. J

oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W
. 3 d 1 , 11 (Tex. Crim. App.04

- 07

- 00 88 9- CR

- 3- 20 00 ). “ [D]ue de fe re nc e must be ac c or de d th e fa c t f ind e r’ s d e te rm inatio ns , p art ic ula rl y tho se deter minations concer

ning the weig ht and cr edibility of the e vidence ,” and a re v i ewing cour t’s dis a g re e me nt “ wi th t

he fa c t fin der’ s deter

min a tio n is a

pp ro pr ia te on ly

wh e n th e re c or d c le arl y indicates such a

step is nece ssary

to arre st the occur

renc e of a manifest injustice.” Id . at 9. I dentification of the defe ndant as the pe rson who committed the off ense c harg ed is part of the S tate’s burden of proof bey ond a re asonable doubt. Mi lle r v . S tat e , 6 6 7 S. W. 2 d 7 7 3 , 7 7 5 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 84 ); W

igg ins v . S

tat e , 255 S.W .3d 766, 771 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.). I n this case, a

confide ntial informant told the investigating officer that Ag uirre w as the pe rson who stabbed B alder a. B oth Ba ldera and a second ey ewitness, J ere my Villarre al, identified Aguirre a s the person who stabbed B alder a fr om a photo lineup. I n addition, Roland Olivarez, who also wa s stabbed duringth e fi gh t , testified that Ag uirre told anothe r per son that he had stabbe d Ba ldera
. Although de fense counsel questioned the cre dibilit y of the ey ewitnesses’ testimony , g iven the vague descr iptions of the assailant that they initially provided, the f act f inder’s de termination with reg ard to their cre dibilit y

is not clearly

wrongor manife stly

unjust. Ac cording ly , the evidenc e is le g ally and fac tually sufficie nt to support the jury ’s finding that Ag uirre sta bbed B alder a. Although a

knife is not a deadly wea

pon per se, a knife can be s hown t o be a deadly wea pon thr ou g h p ro of

of the man ner of it s use , it s si ze a nd sh a pe , a nd its c a pa c ity to c a us e se ri ou s b od ily injury
. Mo ra le

s v . S tat e , 6 33 S.W. 2d

86 6, 86 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 82 ). Th e State do e s n ot h a ve to introduce the knife into evidenc e to prove the knife w as a de adly wea pon. Ma ga na v. Stat e , 230 S.W. 3d 41 1, 41 4 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n Ant on io 200 7, pe t. r e f’ d) ; Nic k e rso n v . S tat e , 69 S.W .3d 661, 669 (T e x. Ap p. —Wa c o 2 00 2, pe t. r e f’ d) . Wo un ds inf li cte d up on a

vic timare a

fa c tor to c on sid e r i n deter mining whe ther a

wea pon qualifies as a

deadly wea pon. Id
.04

- 07

- 00 88 9- CR

- 4- I n this case, pictur es of the w ounds inflicted on Ba ldera wer e introduced into e vidence . The jur y he ard te sti mony that Ba lde ra su ff e re d fiv e sta

b wound s on his ba c k, on e on his c he st, and

on his
ear . Ba ldera

was blee ding pr ofusely

from the wounds w hen he a rrived at the emer g ency room. The treating phy sician in the em er gency room, Dr. Ry an Crade ur, wa s focuse d on whether Ba ldera ’s lungs ha d been pe netrated which would c ause the m to collapse. Dr. Cra deur te stified that Ba ldera could have died from the w ounds. Given the nature of the stab wounds, Dr. Cra deur be lieved Ba ldera might re quire surg ical interve ntion; therefor e, B alder a wa s air-lifted by helicopter

to another hospital with surge ons on staff f or better car e. In vi ew o f the e vidence prese nted, including the doctor’s e x presse d conce rns and his testimony that Ba ldera

could have died from the w ounds, we conclude that the evidenc e is le g ally and fa ctually sufficie nt to support the jury ’s finding that Ag uirre
us e d a de a dly we a po n in the a ssa ult
. I DE NT I F I CAT I ON P ROCE DURE I n h is thir d is su e , A g uir

re c on te nd s tha t an im

pe rm iss ibl y

su g g e sti ve pr e tr ia l ph oto g ra ph ic ide nti fi c a tio n ta int e d B a lde ra ’s in- c ourt ide ntif ic a tio n. We m a ke the fo llo wi ngtw o in qu ir ie s in deter m i n i n g t h e admissibili ty of an in-c ourt identification: (1) w hether the police use d an imp e rm iss ibl y

su g g e sti ve pr e -t

ri a l id e nti fi c a tio n p ro c e dure , an d (2) if so , whe the r, un de r t he tot a lity of the c ircumstances , t h ere was a very substantial likelihood of irrepa rable misidentification. See De lk v . S tat e , 855 S.W .2d 700, 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The defe ndant has the bur den to show by clea r and convincing evidenc e that the i n-cour t identification i s unreliable
. Id. Th e a dmi ssi bil ity of an ide ntification is a mix ed question of law and fac t that we re view de novo
. Se e Los e rth v . S tat e , 963 S.W .2d 770, 773 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).04

- 07

- 00 88 9- CR

- 5- Al tho ug h A g uir

re ’s br ie f fo c us e s on the se c on d ste p of thi s two -p art inq uir y , we mus t f

ir st
e va lua te t h e p r e t r i a l p h o t o l i n e u p i t s e l f t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r

i tw a s i mp e r

m i s s i b l y o r u n d uly sug g estive. De lk, 855 S.W. 2d a t 706; Mc Cle nto n v . S tat e , 167 S.W .3d 86, 96 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, no pet.). A lineup is conside red unduly sug g estive i f other pa rticipants ar e g reatly

dissimi lar in appea ranc e fr om the suspect. McClenton , 167 S.W .3d at 96. A suspec t may be g reatly

dissimi lar in a pp e ara nc e fr om t

he ot her pa

rt ic ipa nts be c a us e of his dis tin c tly

dif fe re nt a pp e ara nc e , r a c e , h a ir color, he ight, or

ag e. Id . Minor discrepa

ncies be tween lineup participants, however, do not render a lineup impermissibly

sug g estive. Id
. The lineup in this case was prepa red using a computer prog ram that g ener ated random ph oto g ra ph s b a se d o n s imi lari tie s to Aguir re ’s ph oto g ra

ph . A lth ou g h Aguir

re is the on ly pe rs on

in the lineup wea

ring a nec klace , this i s a minor discrepa ncy and fa ils to establish by clea r and convincingevidenc e that the lineup wa s impermissibly sug g estive. Even if we wer e to consider the sec ond step in the ana ly sis, we would weig h the following fac tors ag ainst the questionable c orrupting eff ect of t h e l i n eu p in assessing reliability under the totality of the c ircumstance s: (1) the opportunity of t he witness to view the criminal at the time of the cr ime; (2) the witness’s deg ree of attention; (3) the a ccur acy of the witness’s pr ior descr iption of the c riminal; (4) the leve l of ce rtainty demonstrated by

the witness at the c onfrontation, and (5) the leng th of time b et we en t h e cr i m e and the confr ontation. Los e rth , 9 63 S.W. 2d a t 77 2. I n th is
c a se , th e wi tne sse s te sti fi e d th a t th e are a in w hic h th e a ssa

ult oc c ur re d w a s w e ll- lit by

a str e e t lamp and porc h lights. B alder a had a g ood opportunity

to witness Ag uirre, stating that he turned a round and sawhim whic h is c onfirmed by the stab wounds to his chest a nd ear . Ba ldera

stated that he g ot
a g oo d lo ok

a t hi s a ssa ila

nt. B a lde ra

wa s sh ow n the lin e up a

pp ro xima te ly nin e da

y s a ft e r t he of fe ns e04

- 07

- 00 88 9- CR

- 6- and only took seconds to identify Ag uirre. Although B alder a’s pr ior descr iption of his assailant was vag ue, even i f t he trial c ourt had de termined that the lineup w as impermissibly sug g estive, the trial
c ourt wo uld no t have e rr e d in de te rm ini ng that no su bs tanti a l lik e lih oo d of irre para ble misidentification occur

red g iven the totality

of the c ircumstance s. There fore , the trial cour t did not
err in admitting B alder a’s in-c ourt identification. P ROB AT E D F I NE I n his fourth issue, Ag uirre c ontends the trial cour t erre d in not probating the fine a ssessed as par t of his se ntence
. The State a g ree s with Ag uirre r eg ardingthe law, i.e. a judge cannot or der that a fine probate d by

a jury be paid a s a condition of probation. Se e Ma rti ne z v . S tat e , 874 S.W .2d 267, 267 (Tex. A

pp.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1994, pet. re f’d) . Howeve r, the State disag ree s that the trial judg e did not probate the fine. A lthough the tr ial judge expressed a lack of clar ity with reg ard to w he the r t

he fi ne sh ou ld be pr ob a te d a t the se nte nc inghe ari ng , s he c on c lud e d b y statin g that “ we ’l l look into that and whatever the l aw requires of that, that’s what we’ ll do.” The trial court’s Orde r I mposing Conditions of Comm unity Supervisio n clea

rly states, “Pay

the fine in the a

mount of $5000.00 PROB A T E D
. ” T h e in c lu s io n o f th e w o r d “ f in e ” in th e p o rti o n o f th e o r d e r s tati n g the te rm s f or the pa y me nts Aguir

re wa s r e qu ir ed to make do e s n ot c ha ng e our a na ly sis . A s th e State explains i n its brief, the c alculation of the pay ment terms ex cl u d ed the amount of the fine. Acc ording ly , Ag uirre’ s fourth issue is overr uled. C ONCL US I ON The trial c ourt’s judg ment is affirme d. Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice DO NO T PU B L I SH