Court Opinion

ID: 9776410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:34:14.119404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:38.474778
License: Public Domain

GERALD M. SMITH, Special Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached but am unable to do so on the basis stated in the opinion of Welborn, C. As I understand the opinion the action of the trial court is upheld solely on a determination that the trial court disbelieved the evidence presented by movant concerning the lineups. The trial court made no such finding. The state presented no evidence to contradict movant’s evidence of the circumstances surrounding the two lineups conducted nor did the state attempt to explain its failure to present conflicting evidence. In such posture I cannot agree that appellate review of the court’s action can be premised on a determination that the trial court made an unstated finding against movant’s credibility. If it may be so premised I see little value in appellate review of 27.26 cases at all.
Since neither United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, nor Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, is retroactive in application, the movant’s attack on the lineups is limited to the due process claim that they were so suggestive as to lead to irreparable mistaken identification. See Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199. The evidence at movant’s original trial is, in my opinion, sufficient to demonstrate that under the totality of the circumstances the identification of movant at trial had an independent basis other than the lineups. This was the basis of the trial court’s finding and I cannot say it is clearly erroneous.