# FILED
July 9, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON JUNE 1998 SESSION

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9707- CR-00290 Appellee, ) ) Shelby County V. ) ) Honorable Jam es C. Beasley, Jr., Ju dge ) GREGORY WHITFIELD, ) (Aggravated Robbery, Aggravated Assault) ) Appellant. )

FOR THE APPE LLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: A C Wharton, Jr. John Knox Walkup Shelby County Public

Defender Attorney General & Reporter Tony N. Brayton Georgia Blythe Felner Assistant Public Defender Counsel for the State (On Appeal) Criminal Justice Div ision Cordell Hull Building, Second Floor Michael Johnson 425 Fifth Avenue North Kevin Reed Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Assistant Public Defenders 201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 201 William L. Gibbons Memphis, TN 38103 District Attorney General (At Trial) David B. Shapiro Chris Marshburn Assistant District A

ttorneys General 201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 301 Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED PAUL G. SUMM ERS, Judge

O P I N I O N-2- The appellant, Gregory Whitfield, was convicted by a jur

y of aggravated robbery and aggrav

ated assault in the Shelby County Criminal Cour t. The trial court overruled his mot ion for a new trial and he appeals. The sole issue for our review is w

hether the evidence is suffici ent to support the jury’ s verdict.
On July 13, 1995, Yuet Lee an d her son, Albert, wer e working at the family business, the B & G mar ket, in Memphis. A lone man enter ed the store. He was not wearing

a mask. He pointed a gun at Y uet Lee and demanded money and cigarettes. Y uet Lee complied with his request. She testified that she was afraid of the gunman. Lee’ s son, Albert, was als o in the store. The man pointed the gun at Albert and t old him to lie on the floor. The g unman fled. Yuet Lee pressed a silent al arm and the police soon arri ved.
Lieutenant C. G. Gordon of the Memphi s Police Department inv estigated the robbery. He show

ed Yuet Lee and Albert a photog raphic lineup separately

. They both identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the robbery. At trial, Yuet Lee identified the appellant as the man who robbed her at gunpoint . She testified the appellant had been a cus tomer in the store before the robber y. Yuet Lee also testified that the appell ant’s family had been customers in the store for a long time. At trial, Albert identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the robbery. Albert testified that the appellant had been a customer in the store before the robbe ry.
The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. In a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the relevant question on appellate review is whether, after viewing the ev

idence in the light most fav orable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could ha ve found the essential elements of the crime or-3- crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); T.R.A.P. 13(e); State v. Duncan , 698 S.W.2d 63 (Tenn. 1985).
In Tennessee, great weig ht is given to the re sult reached by the jury in a criminal trial. A j ury verdict accr edits the testimony of the state's witnesses and resolves all conflict

s in favor of the state. State v. Willia ms , 657 S.W.2d 405 (Tenn. 1983). Moreover, a guilty verdict replaces the presumption of innocence enjoyed at trial wi

th the presumption of guilt on appea l. State v. Grace , 493 S.W.2d 474 (Tenn. 1973). The appellant has the burden of ov ercoming the presumption of guilt. Id. On appeal, the state is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonabl e inferences which may be drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832 (Te nn. 1978).
The appellant’s sufficiency of the ev idence issue challenges the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the offenses. He concede s that the eyewitness testimony is sufficient evidence to support the appe llant’s convictions. He argues, however, that the eyewitness testimony is “untrustworthy.”

The appellant points out that the r obbery occurred quic

kly and that Yuet Lee has great difficul ty seeing without her glasses. He also points out that there is no physical evidence linking th e appellant to the crime. He contends that the Yuet Lee and Albert di d not give the police a description of the perpetrator before identifying the appellant in the photograp hic lineup. Neither party asked Yuet Lee w hether she was weari ng her glasses on the day of the robbery. Neither par

ty asked Yuet Lee, her s on, or Lieutenant Gordon wheth er the Lees gave a description of the perpetrator. The appell ant’s reliance on those factors to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence is unconvincing.-4- There is sufficient evidence from w hich the jury could hav

e identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Y uet Lee and Albert identified the appellant as the perpetrator in a photographic lineup. Both testified that the appe llant had been in the store before the robbery. At trial, Yuet Lee and Alber t identified the appellant as the perpetrator. See State v. Johnson , 910 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)
The judgment of the trial court i s affirmed.

_____________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Ju dge
CONCUR:-5- ___________________________ DAVID H. W ELLES, Judge

___________________________ JOE G. RILEY, Judge