NO. 07-06 -036 0-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D APR IL 11 , 200 7

_________

_________

_________

___ CLARENCE M. BOYD, JR
. Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 200 5-40 9,6 74; HON. BRAD U NDERW OOD, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

___ Before QUINN, C.J. and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. C l a re n c e M
. B o y d , J r . wa s conv ict e d o f a g g ra v a t e d ro b b e r y a n d g i v e n a l i fe sent ence . In chal le n gi ng the con v iction, h e argues tha t 1) the evidence was factu ally ins u ffi c i e n t t o s u p p o rt t h e v e rd i ct d u e t o t h e u n re l i a b l e i n - c o u rt i d e n t i fi c a t i o n , a n d 2) the cour t er re d i n admi tti ng tes ti mony from Brandi Anderson about w hat was said i n her p re s e n c e a f

t e r t h e ro b b e r

y b e c a u s e i td e n i e d a p p e l l a n th i s r i g h to f c o n f ro n t a t i o n . W e ov er ru le the i ss ues and affirm the j udg ment.A pp el l an t ’ s gi rl fri en d, w ho w as a f ri en d of B ran di , t es t i fi ed t ha t B ran di w as ne ver i n a po s i t i on t o h ave 1 hear d t he al l eged conv er sat i on bet ween Jar r od and appel l antand t hatJar r od nev ercam e t o herapa r t m ent l o o k i n g fo r a p p e l l a n t a s B ra n d i te s ti fie d
. 2 Back gr ound On J uly 1 , 2 0 0 5 , D ar la Ren o and her hus band R og er

were wor ki ng at the D alt on Fl oors sto re in Lubboc k w hic h they manag ed. Ja rrod H ull was als o empl oy ed atthe sto re . Around 11 :30 a .m., a bl ack man, lat er

i denti fied as appel lan t, entered th e sto re and as ked Darl a aboutca rp et meas urements
. She di re cte d the man t o R og er w ho was behi nd th e count er . As Rog er

began to cal cul ate the measurements , appell ant p ull ed a g un on Rog er and demand ed c ash w hic h R og er g av e him from the cas h draw er . Appel lan t t hen as ked fo r the “o ther money .” Und er the count er w ere two other bag s. One of t h o se ba gs c on ta i ne d ov er

fl ow mo ne y an d th e ot he r on e w as a “ du mmy b ag .” R og er

g av e th e du mmy bag to a p p e lla n t who then ask ed for the o ther money . At t hat p oin t, Rog er su spected so m e o n e w h o wo rke d a t th e s to re wa s in volve d
. R o ger ga ve a p p e lla n t t h e ove rf lo w b a g, and app ell ant l eft. Sev eral days a fter t he robber y , Brandi Anderson made a p hone c all to Rog er dur ing w hic h s he to ld him she had bee n i n the par ki ng l ot of an a par tment compl ex

w hen s he hea rd app el lant a nd Ja rrod talking abou t taking mon ey f rom th e store. She also to ld Rog er thatafter

the ro bber

y , J ar ro d had come back to the apartment compl ex looki ng for a p p e ll a n tin o rd e r t o sp li tt h e p ro c e e d s o f t h e ro b b e ry. 1 Issue 1 - Factu al Suff

iciency of th e Evide nce Appel lan t i nit ial ly

co ntends that the ev ide nce is factual ly ins uff ic ien t to suppo rtthe id e n t if ic a t io n o f

h im a s t h e p e rp e t ra t o r o f t h e ch a rg e d o f

fe n s e . T h e st a n d a rd b y wh ic h we3

re v iew fact ual suff ic ien cy

chall eng es is set fort h i n W ats on v . St ate, 2 0 4 S
. W
. 3 d 4 0 4 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2006)
. W e refer the par ti es to that opi nio n. And, i n c onsi der ing thatst andard, w e ov er ru le the i ss ue. Nei ther D ar la nor

R o gerwere abl e to ide nti fy appel lan t i n a p hoto spread pr ior to trial. N o r d id D a rl a ident if y app ellantat trial as the rob ber. How ever, Rog er did, an d in doi ng so , he tes ti fied th at he had loo ked at ap pel lan t’ s face and that he was “1 00 percent sure”
. . . “ [b]ec ause y ou don’ t forg et somebody that puts a g un on y ou.” H e al so ex pla ine d hisi nabi li ty to ide nti fy appel lan t i n the phot o s pread bec ause “[ n]ot ev er y body phot og ra phs the same a s t hey loo k in p erson .” In short, Ro ger’s in-court iden tif ication was unequivocal. That he coul d notremember w hat shi rtor pants the robber wore or thathi s i denti ficat ion w as not made unti l approx ima tely el ev en month s a fter t he ev ent g o to the weig ht an d credi bil ity

of the i denti ficat ion , w hic h, i n tur n, i s for the jur y to deter mine. So sa v. State, 1 7 7 S
. W
. 3 d 2 2 7 , 2 3 0 ( Te x . A p p . – H o u s t o n [ 1 D i s t
. ] 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t
. ) ( h o l d i n g thatthe st cont enti on th at an i denti ficat ion was unreli abl e bec ause the i ntr uder wore a mas k g oes to the w it ness ’ credi bil ity ); Har vey v. Sta te, 3 S.W .3d 1 70, 1 75 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4 D is t.] th 1999, pet. re f’d) ( hol din g thatthe arg ument that t he w it ness di d nothav e the ti me, oppor tuni ty , or emotional w herew it hal to g et a g ood look at the g unman w ent to the weig ht of the evidence and t he credibility of t he w itness). And, a v erdict is not ren dere d factu ally ins uff ic ien t s impl y

bec ause the j ur

y resol v ed thos e credi bil ity is sues ag ain st the a cc used. Har vey v. Sta te , 3 S.W .3d a t 175
. W e furt hern o te t h a t a pol ic e off ic er was all ow ed to tes ti fy that Jar ro d i denti fied appel lan t as the ro bber from a photo spread and thatBrandi i denti fied appel lan t as one ofP en di ng be fore t he co urt are t w o m oti on s requ es t i ng t ha t w e a s s i s t ap pe l l an t i n s ec uri ng effec t i ve 2 a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l
. A p p e l l a n t a s s e rts th a t h i s a p p e l l a te c o u n s e l w a s d e fe c ti v e b e c a u s e h e f a i l e d to q u e s tio n th e le g a l s u ff ic ie n c y o fth e e v id e n c e s u p p o r tin g g u ilt. Y e t, h a v in g f o u n d t h e e v id e n c e t o b e f a c tu a lly s u ff i c i e n t, w e i m p l i c i tl yfo u n d i t l e g a l l ys u ff i c i e n t a s w e l l
. S e e J o n e s v . S ta te , N o. 07- 06- 0244- C R , 2006 T ex. A p p . L EX I S 96 84 at *4 n.1 (T ex . A pp . –A m ari l l o N ove m be r 8, 20 06 , no pe t
. ) ( no t de s i gn ated for pu bl i c ati on ). T hus, coun sel cann ot be f aul t ed forom i t t i ng t he t opi c. Appel l antal so cr i t i ci z es hi s app el l at e cou nsel f orf ai l i ng t o asse r t t hati n al l owi ng t he p ol i ce off i cert o r ei t er at e Jar r od’ s i dent i f i cat i on o fapp el l antas t he r obber , appel l antwas de ni ed h i s r i ghtof conf r ont at i on. T hi s ar gum entt oo l acks m er i t si nce no one at t r i al obj ect ed to th e te s ti m o n yo n th a t b a s i s . T h u s , t h e c o n te n ti o n w a s w a i v e d
. R e y n a v . S ta te , 168 S. W
. 3d 1 73, 179 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 5) ( st at i ng t hat an obj ect i on o n t he g r ounds of hear say f ai l s t o pr eser v e a com pl ai nt of v i ol at i on o f th e c o n fr o n ta ti o n c l a u s e ). G i v e n th a t t h e yl a c k b a s i s , t h e m o ti o n s a re o v e rr u l e d
.

Appel l antal so ob j ect ed t o t he st at em entdur i ng t r i al as hear say . However , t he St at e pr off er ed t he 3 com m entas a st at em entaga i nst i nt er est
. M or e i m por t ant l y , he does notar gue on a ppeal t hatt he u t t er ance fe l l o u ts i d e th a t e x c e p ti o n to th e h e a rs a yru l e . 4 the p ersons hav ing a di sc uss ion abouttak ing money from the sto re . Appel lan t c ontends that no weig ht shoul d be ass ig ned thi s ev ide nce becau se Jar ro d w as an ac compl ic e and Brandi was a felon attempt ing to obtai n a rew ard for her tes ti mony . Y et, thos e matt ers t oo are for the j ur

y to w eig h i n det er mini ng the credi bil ity of thos e w it ness es. See Wesbr ook v. State, 2 9 S
. W
. 3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 1 ( T e x. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) ( h o ld in g t h a tt h e ju ry i s t h e e xc lu s ive jud g e of the credi bil ity

of the w it ness es and the w eig ht to be g iv en their testi mony ). And, w hen c onsi dering both thei r tes ti mony and the a ppl ic abl e s tandard of rev iew , we c annot say thatthe ev ide nce of gu il t was w e a k o r o ver w hel med by

co ntrar y ev ide nce. I n s hor

t, the v erdict enj oys t he s uppor t of factual ly

su ff ic ien t ev ide nce. 2 Issue 2 - Conf

ronta tion Clau se Appel lan t next c omplai ns of the dec is ion to admitBrandi ’s reit erati on of w hat J ar ro d sa id a ft e r t h e robbe ry

abo ut w ant ing his share of the m one y . Th is decision pu rported ly deni ed hi m hi s r ig ht of c onfronta ti on. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. 3 I n d e t e rm ining w het her on e ha s bee n de nied his ri ght of conf ronta tion, we mu st deter mine w hether

the sta tement is tes ti monial or non- tes ti monial
. Crawf ord v. W ashi ngton, 541 U .S. 36 , 6 8 , 124 S.C t. 1354, 1374, 158 L. Ed.2d 177, 203 ( 2004)
. If5

tes ti monial , t hen admi ss ion of the h e arsay st atement v iol ated a defendant’ s r ig ht t o confro ntati on unl ess the defendant had the oppor tuni ty to cross -e xam in e the dec larant. Id. Next, state me nts are testim onia l w hen the y are akin to 1) ex par tein- cour

t tes ti mony or i ts functi onal eq uivale nt s uch as aff ida v it s, cus todi al ex aminat ion s, or p rio r tes ti mony that the d efendant w as unabl e to cross -e x amine, 2) pretr ial st atementsthatthe decl arant woul d ex pec t t o be used in a prosec uti on, 3 ) extra- jud ic ial st atementsi n formal iz ed mater ial s s uch as aff ida v it s, depos it ion s, pr ior tes ti mony , or

co nfessi ons, or

4)st atements made under

ci rc umstan cesthatwoul d l ead an obj ect iv e w it ness to bel iev e t h a t t he sta tement woul d be used in a future j udi ci al proceed ing
. W all v. Sta te, 184 S. W .3d 7 30, 735 (Tex
. Cr im. App. 2006)
. Indi ci a s ur ro undi ng the utterance w hic h s houl d be cons ide re d inc lud e 1)to w hom i t was made, 2)w hether i t w as v olu nteered or sol ic it ed, 3 ) the s etti ng in w hic h th e u tt erance w as made, an d 4)the ti me i t was made. Fl or es v. State, 170 S.W .3d 7 22, 7 24 (Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2005, pet. re f’d)
. Here, J a r ro d ’ s c o mm e n ta b o u tl o o k i n g fo r a p p e l l a n tt o re t r i e v e h i s p o rt i o n o f t he stolen mon ey cou ld reaso nab ly b e dee me d as against Jarrod’s intere sts and not on e w hich the d ecl arant woul d w ant others to hear. Nor w as itsaid under

oath, at anytri al, duri ng any pretrial proce edin g, or during discovery . Rather, th e words w ere voluntee red to a ppe llant’s g ir lfri end dur ing a c onv ersat ion i n an apar tment w hil e ex pla ini ng w hy the decl arant s oug ht appel lan t after

the ro bber

y . Fi nal ly , nothi n g o f

record s ug g est s t hat t he i nformati on was par t of a conv ersat ion i nv olv ing an a ttemptto obtai n ev ide nce for us e i n a l ater prosec uti on. Gi v en th ese ind ic ia, we c annot say thatthe tr ial cour

t’ s d eci si on to ov er ru le the reit erati on non- tes ti monial fell outs ide the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement.6

The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.
Per C ur iam
Do not p ubl is h.