*• f Affirmed and Opinion Filed August 22, 1997

In The 

### (Hourt ofAppeals 

### Txfttj Itstrtri at ©eseas at Sallas No. 05-96-01025-CR WILLIAM SIMONE HUNTER, Appellant

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appealfrom the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F95-74076-NK OPINION Before Justices Lagarde, Morris, and Moseley Opinion By Justice Morris 

## Following a trialbeforethecourtwithouta jury, WilliamSimoneHunterappealshis conviction for aggravated robbery. In asingle point of error, appellant contends the evidence is factually insufficient to support his conviction. Concluding the evidence is factually sufficient, we affirm the trial court'sjudgment. Factual Background 

## On April 14, 1995, Richard Perkins stopped at aconvenience store to buy anewspaper. As Perkins was getting back into his car, he heard someone behind him say, "Give me your wallet." When Perkins turned around, he saw a thin black man with close cropped hair and a bandanna over his face. The man demanded Perkins's wallet again and, although Perkins was seventy-six years old at the time, he decided to fight the man rather than give him the wallet. Perkins reached out and grabbed the assailant's bandanna, hit him in the adam's apple, and punchedhim in the stomach. Perkins testified thatwhen he pulled the bandanna down, he got a good look at the assailant. Perkins furthertestified that he knew he would know the assailant if he saw him again. The assailant hit Perkins in the shoulder, grabbed apager off of Perkins's belt, and ran off down the road. Perkins immediately called 911. The next day, Perkins decided to call his pager number to see ifanyone answered. Shortly after Perkins left the page, appellant returned the call, leaving his name and phone number on Perkins's answering machine. Perkins and appellant left each other several 

### messages and finally spoke several days later. Perkins informed appellantthat he was using Perkins's pager and that appellant would have to "suffer the consequences." Perkins then gave appellant's name and phone number to the police. After investigating the information obtained by Perkins, the police put together a 

### photographic line-up for Perkins to examine. Included in the line-up was a picture of 

### appellant. Perkins quickly and without hesitation identified appellant as the man who

robbed him. 

### At trial, appellant called three witnesses in his defense: his best friend, his best

### friend's boyfriend, and the boyfriend's aunt. The aunt, Felicia Walker, was employed as a child abuse investigator for the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services. Walker testified she first met appellant the weekend before the date ofthe offense when 

### she drove appellant, hernephew, andhernephew's girlfriendto thebus station. According 

### to Walker, appellant was going to Louisianawith her nephew to spend the Easter holiday with Walker's family. Walkerfurther stated shejoinedthe family inLouisiana on April 14, the date ofthe offense, and appellantwas there. Walker drove appellantbackto Dallas on 

## April 17. Walker's story was corroborated by appellant's other two witnesses who both stated appellant was with them in Louisiana on the day of the offense. The defense submitted into evidence apicture ofappellantwithmembers oftheWalkerfamily allegedly taken on April 14. The picture itselfwas undated. 

## Appellant also testified onhis ownbehalf. Appellant statedhewas inLouisianaon 

## the day ofthe offense. According to appellant, he obtainedpossession ofPerkins's pager 

## by purchasing it from some men outside the convenience store where Perkins had been robbed. Appellantknew the pagerwas stolenbut statedhe returned Perkins's phone call because he wanted to find out the pager number in order to be able to use it. 

## After hearing the evidence, the trial court found appellant guilty of aggravated 

## robbery. Appellantwassentencedtofifteenyears' confinementinthestatepenitentiaryand fined $500. This appeal ensued. Discussion 

## In asingle pointoferror, appellantcontends the evidence is factually insufficientto

-j-support his conviction. Specifically, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the identification evidence establishing him as the perpetrator. When analyzing a claim of factual insufficiency, we simply review the evidence in support of and contrary to the trier of fact's findings and determine whether the verdict is so contrary to the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Scott v. State, 934 S.W.2d 396, 398-99 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1996, no pet.). We must be mindful that we do not sit as a juror: we do not decide the existence or nonexistence of a vital fact; we do not decide the truth or falsity of proffered evidence; we do not judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. at 399. Furthermore, we may not set aside a finding of guilt for factual insufficiency simply because a different result might bemore reasonable. Id. Ifreasonable minds could differ about the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, we may not reverse the verdict. Id. In this case, appellant essentially challenges Perkins's credibility as an eyewitness and asserts thathis alibi witnesses gave more reliable testimony. Such conflicts in the evidence
are for the trier offact to decide. See De Los Santos v. State, 918 S.W.2d 565, 569 (Tex. 

### App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Having examined all the evidence under the applicable standard ofreview, we cannot conclude the evidence produced by the State is so uncertain, inconsistent, improbable, or unbelievable that it would be clearly unjust to allow the conviction to stand. We also cannot conclude the trier offact's findings are against the great weight of the evidence. Because the trier of fact's findings are supported by factually sufficient evidence, it is unnecessary for us to detail further the evidence relevant to theissue. Scott, 934 S.W.2d at 399. We overrule appellant's sole point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 90 961025F.U05 

### , /I<L4^<*+*i':^*^^1*fe*^.i«*:^^^!5^^^i#*^^^S^^^^^?^^W^ 

# Ylt (Slourt ofAppeals 

### 3Ttf tlf Ststrtrt ofGkxas at Dallas JUDGMENT WILLIAM SIMONE HUNTER, Appeal from the Criminal District Court Appellant No. 4ofDallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F95-74076-NK). No. 05-96-01025-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Morris, Justices Lagarde and Moseley THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating. Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered August 22, 1997.