### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-99-00736-CR

Terry Jo hns, Appel

lant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 0991812, HONORABLE TOM BLACKWE LL, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jury found appel

la nt Terry Johns guilty

of two cou

nts of aggra va ted robb ery . See Te x. Penal Code Ann . § 29. 03(a)( 1), ( 2) (West 1994) . The jury ass esse d pu nishment a t impriso nment f orf orty y ears on t he firs t co un t , an d a t impr iso nme nt fo rt we nt y yea r s o n t he se co nd . We will a ffir m. Brothers Jesusand Jose

Vas quez were li vi ng i n an Austi n apartmen

t in A pril 1999. At about 10:00 p.m. on Apri l 18, a m an an d woman entered the apartmen

t t hrough t he unlo cke d fro nt door . Th e m an wa s a rm ed wi th a pistol and dem

anded the men’ s wall

ets. When Jo se r efuse d, t he ma n sho t him i

n t he hea d. The man the n po inted t he pist ol at Jesu s, w ho g ave t he ma n h i s w al l et. The man and wom an then f l ed. The y were seen b y a witne ss en

tering an apartment across the street f rom th e V as qu ez

ap ar tmen t. Austi n Poli ce Of fi cer Julia n Herna ndez responded t o t he shoot in g call . The witness took Her nande z and oth er

of f i cers to the apartmen

t t he sus pects had be en seen

enterin g. A woman answ er ed t he o ffi

cer s’ kno ck o n t he do or and was t ake n into cus t od y. The officer s hea rd a se co nd2

pe rs on ins id e t he ap ar t men t , an d J o hns ev en t ua lly ca me out in response t o t he off

icers’ dem

ands. Je su s Vas qu ez ’s

wal l et a n d th e p i sto l us ed to s h oot J ose

Va sq ue z w er e f

oun d i n th e a pa rtm en t. JesusVas que z wa s st anding o ut side a s Jo hn s was taken i nto custo dy. Of

fi cer Hernan dez asked Vasquez, “Is t hi s the guy?” Vasquez sai d yes. Both Jesus an d J os e Vasquez ide nt ified ap pe llant at t r ial a s t he man wh o r o bbe d t he m.

In two p oi n ts of e rr or , Jo hns co nt ends t he dist rict co ur t er re d by ove rrul i ng hi s m oti on to su pp r es s J es us Va sq ue z’ s id en t ific at io n t es t imo ny. Johns a rgues that the one-on-o ne sh owup was impe r miss ibly

sug ges t ivean

d ta i nte d the i n- cou rt i de nti f i ca ti on i n v i ol ati on of hi s due pro cess rights. SeeU.S. Const. amend. XIV.

One- on- one sh

owu psare not v i ol ati ve of due process

as a matter of l

aw. Holder

v. State , 837 S .W. 2d 8 02, 804 (T ex. App. —Aus t in 199 2, pet . r ef’d) . T he qu est ion t hat must be an sw er ed in e ac h c as e is whether the suggestiven ess i nhe rent in the procedure was such as t o g ive rise to a substantial

li ke liho od of i

rrepa rab l e m i siden tif i cation. Id . Amo ng t he fact or s t o be considered

i n m ak i ng thi s dete rm i na ti on ar e t he o ppo rt unit y of t he wit ness t o view t he cr imi nal at t he scene, the witness’s degree of att ention, the accuracy of the witness’ s pri or des cr ipt ion o f the accused, the le

vel of c er t ainty de monst ra t ed a t t he co nfro nt at ion, and t he lengt h of t ime betw een t he cri me an d the conf rontation. Id . The assa ilants w er e in the Vasquez’s a partment f or a short tim

e. Jesus Vasquez testifi ed tha t the arm ed man di d n ot at t emp t t o hid e h is id en t it y and t ha t he wa s a ble t o cle ar ly se e h is features. Joh

ns arg ue s th at J esus ’s atte nti on would ha ve b een diver t ed by t he pist ol and by Jos e being sh ot. It is equally

pla usi ble, however, that these ci rcumstances would h

ave caus ed Jesus to pay3

pa rti cul ar atte n ti on to t he man. The re is no e vidence re gar ding any de scr ipt ion o f the assai la nt that Jesusmay have given t he police prior t o t he showup. The showup t oo k place less than one h our after t he cr ime. Jes us’s ident ifi cat ion o f Johns wa s imme dia t e a nd un eq uiv o ca l. Under the circumstances, t he sh owu p w asnot s o i

m pe rm i ss i bl y sugge sti ve asto giv e rise to a sub sta nti al l i ke l i hood of irr ep ar ab le m

i siden tif i cation. See id.; see also Loser th v. State , 963 S. W.2 d 77 0, 772 -7 3 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1998) (standard of revi ew). Points of error three and f our are o verrul ed. In his ot her po ints o f err or , a ppe llant co nt ends t he statut ory i nstruction on the l

awof good t ime an d p ar o le i s un

constituti onal i n the con text of an aggra va ted robb ery

cas e. SeeTex. Code Cr im. Proc. A

nn . art. 37.07 , § 4(a) (We st Supp . 2000) . As r eq uir ed by st at ut e, t he dis t r ict co ur t t o ld t he j ury that “ [u]nder th e law ap pli cab l e i n th i s ca se, t he de fend an

t, i f sente nc ed to a te rm

of i m pri son men t, may ea rn ti me of f the pe riod of

i nc arc era ti on i m pos ed thr ough the aw ard of good con duc t ti me. . . . [b

ut] p ri son autho rities m

ay al so t ak e a wa y all o rpa r t o f an y go o d c o nd uc t t ime earned by the pris oner.” Id . A

ppe l l an t con ten dsthi s i ns truc ti on misle d t he ju ry, an d t hu s d en ied him due pr oc ess a nd

due cou rs e of law , be ca us e p er so ns c o nvic t ed o f ag gr av at ed r o bbe ry ar e in elig ible f ormandatory

supe rvision an d theref ore ca nn ot ea rn ea rl y rel ea se f rom prison by the aw ard of good conduct t ime. SeeTex . Gov’ t Code A nn . § 508.1 49(a)( 12) (W

est Sup p. 2000 ); see also U. S. C on st. ame nd . XI V; T ex . Co nst . ar t . I , § 1 9. Ap pe llant did no t o bje ct t o t he inst ruc t io n a t t r ial.

Thi s Court previousl

y c onsi dered

an d r eje ct ed t he sa me argumen t in an ot her appeal f rom an ag gra va ted robbe ry con vic tion . See Mart

inez v. St ate , 9 69 S .W. 2d 4 97, 501 (T ex. Ap p. —A us t in

199 8, no p et .) . Wit hou t re pea t ing all tha t we said in t hat op inion, w e no t e t hat t he statutory in struction does not m

en ti on man da tory su pervi si on . Tex . C ode

Cr i m . Pr oc. A n n . a rt. a rt.4

37.07, § 4( a) . Th

e i n str uc ti on doe s n ot tel l th e j ur y th at th e def en da n t will ea rn ti me of f hi s p eri od of in carceration, but onl

y tha t he may . Id . The i

ns truc ti on te l l s th

e j ury tha t good co nd uc t t ime w ill not be consi dered i n d ete rm i ni ng the de f en da nt’ s e l i gi bi l i ty f or pa role a nd tha t i t ca nn ot be ac cu r at ely predicted how good co nduct la

wmay be appl i ed to the def

endan t. Id . The i

nstruction adm

onis hes th e jury not t o consider the ex

tent t o whic

h good conduct t im

e m ay be awarded or forfei

ted i n det er mini ng pun i sh men t. Id. We co nc lud ed in Martinez t hat t he inst ru ct ion is no t misl ead ingwhen read as a whole, and thatthere i s n o conf usi on or h arm

i f the j ury f oll ows the i nstructi on. Martinez , 969 S.W.2d at 501.

Even if we assum

e that giv in g the st at ut o r y i nst ru ct ion wa s er ro r in t his cau se, t he err ordi d not de

pri ve appe l l an t of a f ai r and i m partial tria l . See Jimene

z v. State , 32 S.W.3d233, 237- 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Tex. Code Cri m. Proc. Ann . art. 36. 19 (West 19 81 ). N ei th er pa rty referred to the parol

e i nstructi on dur

i ng p uni sh men t argum en ts. The re is no evi

dence b efore us that t he juro rs k new a bou t mandat or y supe rvisio n, o r t hat t hey violat ed t he inst ru ct ion and co nsider ed t he po ss ible aw ard

of go o d c o nd uc t t ime in a ss es sing pu nish men t . T he t er ms of i mprisonm ent assess ed are far le ss

tha n th e m ax i m um ap pl i ca bl e to f i rs t de gre e f

el oni es . Poi nts of err or on e a nd two a r e overruled. The district cour t pr epared se p ara te j udg men ts f or ea ch cou nt. Th e j udg

men ts of convi ction are af

fi rmed.

__________________________________________5 Bea An n Sm ith, Justice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s B . A . Sm

i th a nd Patte rs on Af fi rmed File d: January

25, 2001 Do No t Publis

h