### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 00 63 -C R

______________________________ GREGORY PL ATER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appea l from the 241st J udicial District Court

Smit h County , Texas Trial Court No. 241-0603- 05

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte rThis case was tra nsfer red to this Court pursuant to the Texas Supreme Cou rt' s docket 1 e qu a lizatio n p ro g ra

m. Plater does not cha lleng e his life sente nce. 2 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON G r e g o r y P l a t e r w a s c o n v i c t e d

o f a g g r a v a t e d

r o b b e r y w i t h a d e a d l y w e a

p o n i nS m i t h C o u n t y. 1 On a pp e a l, h e c on te sts the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to s up po rt his c on vic tio n; c la ims that a photogr aphic l i neup shown to the victim was imper missibl y sug g estive; and a

rg ues the trial c ourt should have gra

nted a direc ted verdict. On our revie w of the proceeding s in the court below a nd the applicable law, we overr ule Plater' s points of error and af firm the t rial cour

t's judg ment and sentenc e. 2 I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound On Dec ember 3 0 , 2004, Eric Ta y lor drove f

rom his home in Norman, Okla homa, to play blackjac k at a casino in Bossier City , L ouisiana. In about an hour he won $800.00; he c ashed out these winning s, as well as the initial $600.00 in c hips he had purcha sed, and left the ca sino. Tay lor testified he did not notice any one following him as he left the c asino. He dr ove we st on I nterstate 20 f

or about a n hour; around 11:00 p.m. he saw"blinking " lig hts behind him. Believing this to be a law e nforc ement vehicl e, T ay l or stopped his vehicle on the side of the r oad. An individual in a brig ht orang e swe atshirt approa ched T aylor' s driver' s window and a sked for identification. Tay

lor said the man d i d n o t l ean ove r to his window; after taking Taylor' s license, though, the man walked behind Tay lor' s car and opened t he passe ng er door . He lea ned " 70, 80 per3

c e n t[ s i c ] " o f

h i s b o dy i nt h e p a s s e n g e r d o o r , p l a c e d a p i s t o l a t T ayl o r ' s s i d e , an d d e m an d e d

m o n e y. Taylor rec og nized the man as one w ho had sat at his blackjack ta b l e ea rl i er in the eveningand identified him in court as Plater. During their time at the g ame table , on three occa sions Pl ater had asked Ta y lor for a chip. Eac h time Taylor ref used. After Taylor was stopped on I nterstate 20 and Plate r d e mand e d mo ne y , T ay lor g a ve Plate r $ 1, 10 0. 00 , p a rt of the mon e y

he ha d b ro ug ht w ithhim on his trip. Pl ater

counted the mone y , then s aid he wanted the money from the casino. When Taylor hesitated, Plater told him, " You’re about to g et shot." Taylor then g ave Plater the $1,400.00 from the casino. Plater exit ed the vehicle, told Ta y lor to " just drive," a

nd slammed the passe ng er door

. Taylor drove a

fewminutes and then called the police. Plater te stified that he did indeed play blackjac k at the same casino at the same time as Tay lor, but that he left that casino for another . He sta y e d a sh or t ti me the re , th e n le ft and vis ite d a fr ie nd a bo ut tw e nty mil e s so uth of the B os sie r C ity

are a, re turning afte r midnight to one of the casinos. A secur ity office r for

the sec ond casino testified there was no re cord of

Plater visiting that sec ond casino the nig ht of the robbe ry . II. Legal and F actual Suf fi ciency Plater' s firs t two points of error claim, re spectively , that the evidenc e wa s fac tually and leg ally insufficient to support the jury ' s verdic t. I n revie wing the leg al suffic iency of the e vidence , we view the evidence in the l ight most favor able to the ve rdict and de termine whe ther a ny rational trier of fac t could have found t he essential elements of the of fense bey ond a re asonable doubt. King

v . S tat e , 29 S.W .3d 556, 562 (Tex

. Crim. App. 2000). I n revie wing the fa ctual suff iciency of the4

evidenc e, we view all the evidenc e in a neutra l light. The e vidence is factua lly insufficient whe n, althoug h it is l eg al l y s u ff icient, it is so weak that the ve rdict appe ars to be c lear ly wrongor manifestly

unjust, or the verdic t is ag ainst the g rea t weig ht an d p re p o n d er ance of the e vidence

. Cas til lo v . S

tat e , 22 1 S. W.3 d 6 89 , 6 93 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); W ats on v . S tat e , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414–15, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The indictment alleg ed that Plater, " while i n the course of c ommitt ing the ft of prope rty and wi th i nte nt t o o bta in o r m a int a in c on tr ol o f sai d pro perty , in te nti on a lly and kn ow ing ly

thr e a te n to pla c e Er ic Ta

y lor in f e ar o f i mmi ne nt b od ily

inj ur y or de a th, and

. . . did the n use or e xhibi t a de a dly weap on , t o wi t: a fi rearm ." Th e State of

fe re d e vid e nc e a s to the e le me nts of the c ri me . T ay lo r tes tif

ie d h e sat ne xt to Plater at a blackjac k table in a c asino ea rlier the sa

me day of t he robbery . He identifie d Plater as the man who sig naled f

or him to pull his car

over a nd then threatened him with a pistol and demande d money . Not content with the first $1,100.00 Ta ylor handed him, Plater spe cifica lly demande d "the

mon e y fr om t he c a sin o. " F ro m a ph oto g ra ph ic lin e up , Ta

y lor ide nti fi e d Plate r a s the ro bb e r. Th is evidenc e shows Plater intentionally or knowing ly

acte d to deprive Ta

y lor of his proper

ty

. Taylor also testified he f

ear ed for his life whe n Plater threatened him at g unpoint. Accor ding to Taylor, he c ould "se e the ba rre l and fe el the barr el being place d ag ainst me," saw Plater pull the g un fr om h is p oc ke t or

sid e , the g un wa s a "p ist ol- ty pe we a po n" wi th a bla c k barr e l, he c ou ld n ot t e ll if it wa s co ck ed, and he thoug ht it could kill him. Pl ater told Tay lor he wa s "a

bout to ge t shot,"5

evidenc e that Plater intentionally or knowing ly

threatened or

place d Taylor in fea

r of imm i n ent bodily injury or death. And, despite the fac t that no wea pon was ever found, Taylor' s descr iption of the g un and Plater' s statements are evidenc e a f irea rm was use d or exhibit ed in the commis sion of the robbery

. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 29 .0 3 ( Ve rn on 20 03 ); Da v is v . S

tat e , 180 S.W .3d 277, 28 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —T e xar

ka na 20 05 , n o p e t.) ; Ri dd

ic k v . S tat e , 6 2 4 S. W.2d 709, 7 1 0 ( T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 19 81 , no wr it) (" Ab se nt any sp e c if ic ind ic a tio n to the c on tr ary a t tr ia l, the jury may make the rea sonable inferenc e, from the vi ctim's testimony , that a g un was used in the commission of a crime a

nd that the g un was a

firea rm." ). The Te x as Court of Criminal Appe als has held that testimony using a ny of the ter ms "gun, pistol or revolver" is sufficient to a uthorize the jury to f

ind that a deadly wea

pon was used. W

right

v . S tat e , 591 S.W .2d 458, 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). I n addition, words spoken by the ac cused duri ngthe c omm iss ion

of the of fe ns e may

be c on sid e re d in

de te rm ini ngwh e the r a

we a po n is a deadly one. S e e E n g l i sh v . Stat e , 647 S.W .2d 667, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Taylor testified Plater told h i m that, if he did not g ive him the money from the c asino, " You' re a bout to ge t shot." T h e e v id e n c e was s u f

f ic ie n t, b o th

le g a ll y an d f a c tu a ll y , to s u s ta in

th e ju r y ' s v e r d ic t. We

overr ule Plater' s first two points of error

. III . No Er r or in A dm iss ion of P hot og r aphi c Line up Plater' s third point of error claims the t rial court err ed in admitting a photog raphic lineup law enfor ceme nt showed to Taylor. The li neup is a sing le pag e with six pictures of Afric an-A merica

nTh e lin e up sh ou ld de pic t per so ns wi th suf fi c ie nt simi lari ty in ap pe ara nc e to g ive the wi tne ss 3 a re asonable opportunity

to identify the defendant a nd to establish that the identification is reliable

. Se e Fo rd v . S tat e , 794 S.W .2d 863, 866 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1990, pet. ref ' d). The photog raphs used in the lineup should de pict persons of the same rac e, g ener al skin c olor, ag e, and he ight a s the suspect. See, e .g. , Ba rle

yv . S tat e , 90 6 S.W. 2d 27 , 3 3– 34 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ); Ri v e ra v . S tat e , 808 S.W .2d 80, 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 6 men, e a c h a

p p e ar in g to b e g e n e r a ll y o f s im il a r a g e s an d s tatu

r e . Pl a te r ar g u e s th e li n e up was 3 impermissibly

sug g estive. We disag ree and will overr ule this point of error

. A trial cour

t's de cision to admit or ex clude evidence is revie wed under an a buse of discr etion standard. Se e Gr e e n v . S

tat e , 9 34 S.W. 2d

92 , 1 01 –0 2 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Mo ntg om e ry v . S tat e , 81 0 S. W.2 d 3 72 , 3 90 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 90 ) (o p. on re h' g ). A tr ia l c ourt a bu se s it s d isc re tio n if

its decision was arbitra

ry or unre asonable , Br own v . S tat e , 960 S.W .2d 772, 778 (Tex. App.—Dallas 19 97 , p e t. r e f' d) , o r i f, g ive n th e re c or d a nd the law, the de c isi on

fe ll o uts ide the zon e of

re a so na ble disag ree ment. Se e Be nit e z v . S tat e , 5 S.W .3d 915, 918 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, pet. re f' d). We u s e "a

two-step ana ly sis to determine the a dmissibi lity of an in-c ourt identification: 1) whether the out-of-c ourt identification procedure was impermissibly sug g estive; and, if sug g estive, 2) whe ther that sug g estive proc edure g ave r ise to a substantial l i k el i hood of irrepa rabl e mi si den ti fi cat io n. " Con ne r v . S tat e , 67 S.W. 3d 19 2, 20 0 (T e x. Cr im . Ap p. 20 01 ); see Simmons v. United States , 39 0 U. S. 37 7, 38 4 ( 19 68 ); Stovall v. Denno , 388 U.S. 293, 302 (1967); Barley , 906 S.W .2d at 33. " [A] finding that a challeng ed pretrial i dentification procedur e wa s not in f a c t im pe rm iss ibl y

su g g e sti ve wi ll ob viate the ne e d to a ssa y wh e the r un de r the c ir c ums tanc e s it

cre a t e d a su bs tan ti al l ik eli ho odof m is id ent if ica ti on ." Fo rd

v . S tat e , 9 1 9 S. W. 2 d

1 0 7 , 1 1 7 ( T e x.I n a rec ent unpublished decision, the Waco Court of Appea ls w as prese nted with a similar 4 argument: the appellant c ontended the photog r a p h ic lineup in his case wa s impermissibly sug g estive wher e ther e wa s a "ha lo" eff ect on his picture; re viewing the re cord in that c ase, the revie wing court found t he lineup wa s not impermissibl y sug g estive . J

ac k so n v . S tat e , No. 10-07-00089- CR, 2008 Tex. App. L EXI S 698 (Tex. App.—W aco Jan. 30, 2008, pet. re f' d) (mem. op., not desig nated f or publication). 7 Crim. App. 1996) (quoting W ebb v . S tat e , 7 60 S.W. 2d

26 3, 26 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 88 )) ; see W ill iam s v . S

tat e , 675 S.W .2d 754, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). I n d e te rm ini ngif

a ph oto g ra ph ic dis pla

y is i mpe rm iss ibl y

su g g e sti ve , w e e xami ne the tot a lity of the circ umstances. Eac h case must be decide d on its own facts. Cra wfo rd v . S tat e , 770 S.W .2d 51, 52 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1989, no pet.) (c iting Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 (1968); Lim ue l v . S

tat e , 568 S.W .2d 309 (Tex. Crim. App. [P anel Op.] 1978)). I n Cra wfo rd , we he ld t hat, wher e the victim had a

sufficie nt opportunity

to se e t h e d ef

en d ant, the victim' s observation and descr iption of Crawfor d had a suf ficient indepe ndent orig in to support her in-cour t id en t i fi ca tion. Cra wfo rd , 770 S.W .2d at 52–53. Plater ar g ues that t h e l i n eu p was sug g estive bec ause his picture was plac ed in the bottom ri gh tco rn er

o f t h e p age "w h er e t h e v i ct i m 's e y e s w o u l d n at u ra l l y fa l l fi rs t " an d

b ec au s e P l at er 's ph oto g ra ph ha d the " lig hte st ba c kg ro un d. " We a re no t c on vin c e d th e ph oto g ra ph ic lin e up sh ow n to Ta y lor wa s im pe rm iss ibl y

su g g e sti ve . V ie wi ngthe e nti re arr ay , w e c ann ot say P lat er's pic tur e is

" hig hli g hte d" or

str e sse d o ve r t

he oth e r p ho tog ra

ph s. Cf

. G a r c i a v . Sta te , 563 S.W .2d 925, 929 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (in totali t y o f circumstances, that not all subjects of photog raphs ha d8

moustaches or

tattoos, and appe ll an t wa s s ev era l inches taller tha n other subjec ts, did not render lineup impermissibly

sug g estive). Even if we f

ound the ar

ray impermissibly

sug g estive, we find no evidenc e this "sug g estive proce dure" g ave r ise to a substantial likelihood of irrepa rable misidentification

. Fa ct o rs to be considere d in review ing ide ntification testimony include: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the defe ndant during the commission of the offe nse; (2) the witness' deg ree of attention; (3) the acc urac y of the prior

descr iption of the acc used; (4) the l ev el of certainty of the identification; and (5) the amount of time betwee n the cr ime and conf rontation. Hi ll v. Sta te , 6 92 S.W. 2d 71 6, 72 1 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1985) (c iting Mu nguia v . S tat e , 603 S.W .2d 876, 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)). Tay lor testified h e r ec o gn i z edP l at er

fr o m th e c as i n o . T h i s i d en t i fi ca t i o ni s m a d e m o r e re l i ab l e b y T ay l o r's

rec ollection t h at o n t h re e occ asions, at the blac kjack table , Plater aske d Taylor for a chip. Tay

lor

sa id h e ha d n oth ingto d rink a t th e c a sin o a

nd ha d p lay e d at th e ta

ble fo r a bo ut a n h our. Th is indicates he had a g ood opportunity to observe Plater . He told De puty Dale Hukill, the night of the

ro bb e ry , tha t the ro bb e r wa s a man Ta y lor ha d see n at the c a sin o. Whe n L ie ute na nt P a me la Dunk lin prese nted Tay

lor with the photog raphic lineup, she told him not to pick anyone unless Ta y lor was

" a hu nd red

pe rc e nt s ur e ." Ta

y lor " too k a bo ut t wo se c on ds " to p ic k Pl a te r o ut o f t he ph oto g ra

ph s. Al tho ug h mo re tha

n tw o y e ars e la

ps e d b e tw e e n th e c ri me and tr ia l, t he re is n oth ingin t

he re c or d to imp u g n T ay l o r ' s c e rt a i n t y o f h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . A f

t e r v i e w i n g a l i n e u

p , l a t e r i d e n t i fi c a tio n is admissible as long as the re cord de monstrates that a w itness' pr ior knowledg e of the acc used ser ves9

as an inde pendent sourc e for the identification. J

ac k so n v . S tat e , 65 7 S.W. 2d 12 3, 13 0 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1983). No e rror

is shown. IV. Motion for Direc ted Ve rdict Plater' s last point of error claims the trial cour

t should have gra

nted Plater' s reque st for a direc ted ver dict. Specifica lly , Plater claims there was no e vidence of a de adly wea pon being used i nt h e c o m m i s s i o no f

t h e r o b b e r

y. Th is i ssu e ha s b e e n d isc us se d in the le g a l su ff

ic ie nc y dis c us sio n, and

we wi ll n ot r e pe a t it

. Suffice it to say

that, even thoug h t h e we apon used was neve r produc ed, other evidenc e wa s sufficie nt to prove the use of a dea dly wea pon. Taylor testified Plater pulled a g un on him, as opposed to just usi n g his finge rs, bec ause he "c ould see the ba rre l and fe lt the barre l being place d ag ainst me." When Taylor hesitated giving Plater t he money , he said Plater t old him, "You' re a bout to ge t shot." I t is not required the State pr oduce the actua l weapon use d in the offe nse. See M orales

v . S tat e , 633 S.W .2d 866, 868 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.] 1982) (conc luding that, a lthough knife

wa s n ot p ro du c e d, te sti mony e sta bli sh e d tha t knif

e wa s d e a dly

we a po n) ; Ro ge rs v . S

tat e , 795 S.W .2d 30 0, 30 3 ( Te x. App .—Ho us ton [1st Di st. ] 199 0, pe t. r e f' d) (h old ingthat, a lth ou g h gun wa s n ot i n evidenc e, testimony

supported finding t hat appe llant car ried gun at time of robbe ry ). The tr ial court10

did not err in denying Plater a dire cted ve rdict. We overr ule this point and affirm the judg ment and conviction.

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: April 30, 2008 Date D ecide d: J une 20, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh