### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00556- CR

Re gin ald Sut to n, A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 30313 15, H ONO RAB LE JON N. WIS SER, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant Reg inald Sutton guilty of cr edit car d abuse. SeeTex. P en. Code Ann. § 32.31 (West Supp. 2005). The court assessed punishment, e nhance d by previous fe lony convictions, at eight y ear s’ i mprisonment. In his only point of err or, Sutton complains that his t rial counsel wa s ineffe ctive. We find this complaint to be without merit and will aff irm the judg ment of convic tion. On

June 22 , 2 00 3, Jami e Ra do va no v’ s p ur se , c on ta ini nghe r checkboo k a nd c re dit
c ard , w a s st ole n whi le sh e wa s w or kin g . L ate r t

hat da y , h e r c re dit

c ard wa s unla wf ull y us e d to purcha se spea

kers at Custom Sounds, a

n Austin store . Two day s later, Sutton was ar rested at another stereo store by

an o ff i cer respondingto a re port of an ong oing f org ery offe nse. At Sutton’s feet following his arre st, the office r found Radova nov’s che ckbook and, inside it, the stolen cr edit car d that had bee n used two day s ear lier.2 Sutton ’s ph oto g raph wa s o ne of six c on ta ine d in

a ph oto g ra ph ic lin e up sh own to Gilibaldo Pedraza, t he sales manag er at Custom Sounds. P edra za identified Sutton’s photogra ph as the man who use d Radovanov’s c redit ca rd on June 22. He also identified Su t t o n at trial. Sutton contends that his trial counse l was ineff ective be cause he did not object to the identification te sti mony on the g ro un d that the ph oto g ra ph ic lin e up wa s imp e rm iss ibl y su g g e sti ve . Sutto n mu st show that his at t o rn ey ’s fa ilure to make this objection wa s such a se rious err or under the
c ir c ums tanc e s th at h e was no t fu nc tio nin ge ff

e c tiv e ly a s c ou ns e l and that th e e rr or

pr e jud ic e d h is defe nse to such a de g ree that he wa s deprived of a fa ir trial. See Strick

land v. W ashington , 466 U. S. 668, 687 (1984); He rn an de z v . S tate , 726 S.W .2d 53, 57 (Te x . C ri m. App. 1986). B eca use the
re c or d is sil e nt r e g ard ingc ouns e l’ s r e a so n f or no t ob je c tin g , Sutto n mus t sh ow that no re a so na ble trial strategy

could j u s t i fy co u n s el’s conduct. An dr e ws v . S tate , 1 59 S.W. 3d

98 , 1 02 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2005). A police of fice r who uses a

photogr aphic lineup must be c are ful not to increa se the possibili ty

that a witness may

err in his identification of

the per petrator. Brown v . S

tate , 64 S.W .3d 94 , 9 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 20 01 , n o p e t.) . T he o ffi cer must ta ke c are tha

t a ll o f t he ind ivi du a ls pic tu r e d r o u g h ly f it th e d e s c r ip ti o no f

th e s u s p e c t, th e r e s h o u ld b e n o th in ga

b o u t t h e s uspect’s photogr aph to m ake it stand out, and the office r shoul d not say or do any thing sug g estive, such a s telling the w itness that the suspect is included in the lineup. Id . at 100.

In th is c a se , th e lin e up c on ta ine d s ix pho togra ph s of Af ri c an- Am e ri c an me n w ith sim ila r c omp le xions and

ha ir c uts . T he re are no ob vio us a g e dif fe re nc e s and

e a c h ma n is dr e sse d in civilian clothing. While the six men ar e ce rtainly no t i dentical, ne ither due pr ocess nor common3

sense require s such exactitude. Id
. (qu o t i n g Di c k so n v . S tate , 492 S.W .2d 267, 371 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)). The re is no evide nce that the office r to l d P ed ra z a t h at one of the photog raphs wa s of a
su sp e c t un de r a

rr e st. Pe dr a za t e sti fi e d th at th e of fi c e r who sh ow e d h im the lin e up sim ply a sk e d “ if Ire c og nize d a

ny of the—o f t he se pe op le a s o ne of

the c us tomers th at cam e in o n— to p ur c ha se any thing on that pa

rticular da

y that he aske d for.” He testified that he found all of the photog raphs to be similar, and tha t t h er e wa s nothing a bout the photogr aphs or the of fice r’s c onduct that sug g ested to him that he should identify Sutton’s photogra

ph. The photogr aphic lineup has not be en shown to ha ve bee n impermissibly

sug g estive. Whil e Sutton’s counse l ma y have ha d nothing to lose by objectingto the identification proc edure , we c annot state on the ba sis of this record that counsel’s fa ilure t o make the objection was outside the wide r ang e of r easo n ab l e p ro fessional re prese ntation or that an objec tion would have re sulted in a diffe rent trial outcome . The point of er ror is over

ruled. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Affir med Filed: May

25, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh