# FILED
March 09, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON JANUARY SESSION, 1999

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) No. 02C01-9803-CR-00061 Appellee ) ) SHELBY COUNTY vs. ) ) Hon. James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge DEVON M. CRAWFORD, ) ) (Esp eci ally Ag grav ated Robb ery; Appellant ) Aggra vate d Rob bery)
For the Appellant : For the Appellee : W. Mark Ward John Knox Walkup Asst. Public Defender Attorney General and Repor ter Suite 2-01, 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 Peter M. Coughlan Assistant Attorney Gener al Criminal Justice Div

ision A C Wharton 425 Fifth Avenue North District Public Defender 2d Floor, Cordell Hul l Building Nashville, TN 37243-0493
William L. Gibbons District Attorney General James A. Wax Asst. District Attor

ney General Criminal Justice Comple x Suite 301, 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED: AFFIRMED
David G. Hay

es Judge1 We note that these cases arose f rom two separate i ndictments, t rials,judgments of convicti on, and motions for new trial . The appell ant did not move to consolidat

e these cases nor doe s the reco rd co ntain an or der f rom this c ourt c ons olidat ing th ese cas es fo r purp ose s of th is appeal pursuant

to Tenn. R. App. P. 16(b). However, in the interest of expediting t he appeals of these matters, the rules are suspended under Rul e 2, Tenn. R. App. P. and we elect to address both ca ses on their me rits. 2 OPINION
The appellant, Devon M. Cr awford, appeals two separ ate convictions entered by the Criminal Court of Shelby County for especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and aggrava ted robb ery, a Class B felony. 1 The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery and eleven years for the aggravated robbery. In his appeal as of right, the appellant raises the identical is

sue in challenging the separate convictions of w hether the evidence of the appellant’s i dentity was sufficient to support a guilty v erdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

After a review of both rec ords, we affirm the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court.
I. Especially Aggravated Robbery
On December 14, 1996, after returning from his sister’s graduation , Edward Puckett, the nineteen year old victim, left his house to exercise around 10 p.m. As Puckett was walking down Brower Avenue in Memphis listening to his headphones, he turned around and noticed a v ehicle behind him on the opposite side of the street. The area was w ell-lit with str

eet lights and Christmas lights from the surround ing house s. Pucket t also not iced a bla ck man on the stree t about t hirty-five feet away gesturing

and “saying something .” Puckett removed his headphones to hear what the man was say ing. The man stopped talking,so Puckett turned away from the man and the vehicle. Immediately afte r turning around, Puckett was shot in the back and fell to the ground on his back. Then, the vehicl e pulled alongside the3

victim. A

black man ex

ited the ve hicle, held

a gun to his

head, and sai d, “give

me your wallet.” U nable to quickly re trieve his wall et, the victim told his assailant that the wallet was in his front pocket. When the assailant proceeded to get the wallet from the victim’s pocket, h e was only inches from the victim’s face. The wal let contained $15, photographs and a dr iver’s license. Then,the assailant got back i nto the passenger’s side of the v ehicle and left the scene. A resident of Brower Avenue who heard the gunshot called 911 and delivered assistance to the victim. As a result of the shooting, the victim spent a month in the hospital an d is presently confined to a wheelchair.

At various times over the foll owing weeks, the polic e had the victim view f ive different photographic lineups i n an effort to identify the robber. The victim did not identify anyone from those photog raphs. However, w hen he was shown the si xth array, he confidently identified the appellant as the pers on who robbed him. Moreover, the vic

tim made an in-court identification of the appellant.
The appellant testified and denied an y involvement in the crime. The jury retired a nd return ed a verdic t of guilt y for espe cially aggra vated rob bery.

II. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY
On December 26, 1996, Vicki R obertson, the victim in the second case, had stopped at Walgreens located at Central Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard in Memphis around 6 :30 p.m. As Ms. Robe rtson was ge tting into her car, sh e saw a black male running tow ards her. She quickly

locked the doors before he approached her vehicle. The assailant brandished a gun outside her driver’s seat window and began break ing the glass. He the n placed the gun to her head screaming, “[g]iv

e me your purse, bitch” and “[d]on’t be a hero, bitch.” When she4

reached over to get the money from her purse, the assailant l eaned into the car and took the money continuing t o hold the gun on her. While fleeing the sc ene, he screamed, “[a]ll this shi t for $21.” The crime was r eported to the police.
A few days later, Ms.Robertson saw the picture of her assailant on the front page of the Commercial Appeal . Immediately, she called the police department and identified the appellant, the man in the newspaper, as the person who robbed her. The following day the pol ice displayed to Ms. Robertson a photographic ar ray from which she identified the appel lant. Again at trial, she identified the appellant as the person who robbed her.
The defense presented no evidence. The j ury returned a verdict of guilty for aggravated robbery.

III. SUFFICIENCY O F THE IDENTIFICATION

For both convictions, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the convictin g evidence identif ying him as t he perpe trator of the robbe ries. Spe cificall y, he conte nds the id entific ations of the appe llant in e ach case we re only mad e by one person rendering the identifications “untrustworthy “ and “insufficient.” A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defenda nt is initially cloaked and replaces it w ith one of guilt, so that on appeal , a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient. State v. Tuggle , 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this court does not rew eigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (T enn. 1978). On appeal, the State is entitled to the stron gest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable or legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom. State v. Harris , 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992), cert.5

denied , 507 U.S. 954, 113 S.Ct. 1368 (1993). Viewing the evidence under these criteria, it is this court’s responsibil ity to affirm the conviction if the proof was sufficient for any rational tr ier of fact to have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 317, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); State v. Cazes , 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 1086, 115 S.Ct. 743 (199 5); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).

In State v. Strickland , 885 S.W.2d 85, 87-88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993), this court held that the testimony of a victim identifying

the perpetrator is sufficient in and of itself to support a convic tion. See also State v. Shelton , No. 01C01-9505-CC00144 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashv ille, Mar. 22, 1996), perm. to appeal denied , concurring in results only , (Tenn. Nov. 12, 1996). M oreover, the credibil ity of eyewitness testimony

identifying the accused a s the perpetrator of the crimi nal offense for which he stands trial is a question of fact for the determination of the jury upon consideration of all competent proof. Strickland , 885 S.W.2d at 87 (citing State v. Crawford , 635 S.W.2d 704, 705 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982)); see also State v. Williams , 623 S.W.2d 118, 12 0 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981).
In the first case, the proof clear ly established the opportunity the victim had t o observe his assailant. The appellant was only inches away from Puckett’s face when his wallet was removed from his pocket. The victim noted, “the details of his face.” To his credit, Puckett viewed five different phot ographic lineups consis ting of thirty ind ividuals b efore id entifyin g the appe llant on t he sixth ar ray amongs t five other individuals. N o misidentification was ev er made. Moreover, he w as certain of his in-court identification.
With regard to the second case, the assailant was face to face with Ms. Robertson when he held a g un to her head giving her a perfect opportunity to view her assailant. Several

days later, she recog nized the appellant from the new spaper.6

The very next day she identified the appellant in th e photographic lineup as the perpetrator of the robbery. She also expressed no res ervations regarding

her incourt identification of the appellant. Th erefore, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient for a rational trier of fact to f ind the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for both convictions. This issue is without merit.
Accordingly, the j udgments of the trial court ar e affirmed.

____________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Jud ge

CONCUR:

_________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, Judge

_________________________________ JOHN EVERETT W ILLIAMS, Judge