# FILED
January 26, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON JANUARY 1998 SESSION

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) NO. 02C01-9702-CR-00052 Appellee, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JAMES C. BEASLEY, SR ., QUENTIN LEWIS, ) JUDGE BY DESIGNA TION ) Appellant. ) (Aggravate d Robbery)

FOR THE APPELLANT : A.C. WHARTON, JR. (Of Cou nsel) Shelby County Public

Defender TONY N. BRA

YTON (On A

ppeal) JUANITA

PEYTON (At

Trial) Assistant Public Defenders 201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 201 Memphis, TN 38103-1947 FOR THE APPEL LEE : JOHN KNOX WALKUP Attorney General and Repor ter CLI NTO N J. MOR GAN Assistant Attorney Gener al Cordell Hull Buildi ng, 2nd Floor 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493 WILLIAM L. GIBBONS District Attorney General LEE V. COFFEE Assistant

District Attorney

General 201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 301 Memphis, TN 38103-1947

OPINION FI LED:

AFFIRMED
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE2 OPINION

The defendant, Quentin Lewis, w as convicted by a Shel by County jury of agg ravated robbery. He was sentenced as a Career Offender to thi rty (30) yea r s incarceration. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicti ng evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judg ment of the trial court.

FACTS

On October 28, 1995, Jacqueli ne Green was worki ng as the manag er of Payless Shoe Store in Memphis. She was standing at the cas h register when she noti ced a man enter the store. The man was identified at trial as the defendant. Defendant looked around the store for approximately 20 minutes and approached the register area carrying some hik ing boots. H e then walked to the side of the counter, displayed a “hook-bil led knife” and demanded that Green empty the contents of the cash register. Because Green had previously taken most of the money out of the register and placed it in a safe, only $8.75 remained in the drawer. She gave the defendant
one (1) $5 bill, two (

2) $1 bills and seven (7) quarters. In the process of emptying the regist er drawer, Green was a ble to trig ger two silent ala rms alerting the police that a robbery was in progress. Defendant le ft the stor e with the money and the boots. After

the defendant left, Green walked outside to determine which direction he was traveling.The police arr ived shortly thereaft

er, and Gree n gave them a description of the perpetrator. Within minu tes , Officers John Hughes and Regina Smith of the Memph is Police Department

heard a radio broadcast describing the suspe ct of the robbery. Because they were patroll ing in the immediate area, Hu ghes and Smith began looking for the suspect. Approximate ly five minutes later,they spotted the defendant, whofit the description of the robbery suspect. H e was standing in the1 The defendant does not contest the admissi

bility of the e

yewitness identification at trial. He simply all

eges that the “s

h owup” ident ification and the identification of the defendant in the courtroom prior to the victim’s testimony are relevant factors in determining whether the evid

ence is sufficie

nt to support the ver

dict. 3 backof an apartment complex attempting to enter the back door of an apartment. Hughes and Smith took defendant into custody. Pursuant to a search, they discovered a knife with a curved blade in his pocket. They further found $8.75 on his person, which consis ted of one (1) $5 bill, two (2) $1 bills and seven (7) quarters. Theybrought defendant back to Payless in their

squad car. While defendant was sitting in the backof the car, Green positiv ely identified him as the man who robbed the store. The jury foun d defendant guilty of aggravated robbery. The trial court
s entenced him as a Career Offender to thir ty (30) years. F rom his conviction, defendant brings this appeal.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Defenda nt contends that the evidence is ins ufficient to support his convi ction. He maintains that the “showup” identification procedure uti lized by the police makes the eyewitness identific ation untrustworthy. He further claims that the state’s only eyewitness, Jacqueline Green, wa s present in the courtroom when he was

identified
as “Quentin Lewis” by third persons prior to her testifying at trial. 1 Theref ore, he asserts that the eyewitness i dentification testimony is insufficient to justify a reasonable trier of fact finding him guilty beyond a r easonable doubt. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this court does not reweig h or reevaluatethe evidence. State v. Cab ba ge , 571 S.W.2d 832, 83 5 (Tenn. 1978). A jury verdict appr

oved by th e trial jud ge accredits the state's witnesses and resolvesa ll conflicts in favor of the state. State v. Bigbee , 885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994); State v. Harris , 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (T enn. 1992). On ap peal, the state is entitled to the s trongest legitimate v

iew of the evidence and all legitimate or reasonable inferences whic h may be dr awn4

therefrom. Id . This court will not disturb a verdict of guilt due to the sufficiency of the evidence unless the defendant demonst rates that the facts contained in the record and the inferences which may be drawn theref rom ar e insufficient, as a matter of law, fo r a ration al trier of fact to f ind the a ccused gu ilty be yond a reasonable doubt. State v. Brewer , 932 S.W.2d 1, 19 ( Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Accordin gly, it is the appellate court's duty to affirm the convicti on if the evidence, viewed under these standards, was sufficient for any rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. T enn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 317, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Cazes , 875 S.W.2d 253, 25 9 (Tenn. 1994). In the present case, Green testi fied that she was

certain that defendant was the same man who robbed her on Octobe r 28. She stated that she observed him for approximately 20 minutes prior to the robbery and was able to get a good look at his face. He was not w earing anything on hi s head that could h ave hindered Green’ s view of his face before or during the robbery. The identificatio n of a defendant as the person who committed the offense is a question of f act for the jury to determine. State v. Strickland , 885 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). The testimony of the victim i dentifying the defendant as the perpetr

ator of the cr

ime is sufficient, in and of itself, to support a conviction. Id

. Furthermore, pursuant to defendant’s arrest, the police recover ed a hook blade knife and $8.75 in the ex act denominations as that taken from the s tore. Therefore, we find that the evidence is sufficient to support defendant’s convictions. This issue is without merit.

Accordingly, the j udgment of the trial court is affirmed.5 JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

CONCUR:

JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JU DGE

PAUL G. SUMM ERS, JUDGE