Court Opinion

ID: 4045992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 00:00:16.955627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:39.084953
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                                                                                                                                         04-14-00256-CR
                                                                                                                                                                                FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                                                                                                                     SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
                                                                                                                                                                                       3/4/2015 4:11:45 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                             KEITH HOTTLE
                                                                                                                                                                                                    CLERK

                                                               NO.	
  	
  04-­‐14-­‐00256-­‐CR	
  
                                                                                 	
  
                                                       IN	
  THE	
  COURT	
  OF	
  APPEALS	
              FILED IN
                                                                                                   4th COURT OF APPEALS
                                              FOURTH	
  COURT	
  OF	
  APPEALS	
  DISTRICT	
   SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
                                                             SAN	
  ANTONIO,	
  TEXAS	
            3/4/2015 4:11:45 PM
                                                                                                     KEITH E. HOTTLE   	
  
                                                                                                           Clerk
                                                                                 	
  
                                                                    JEFFREY	
  LEE,	
  
                                                                                 	
  
                                                                      Appellant	
  
                                                                                 	
  
                                                                                V.	
  
                                                                                 	
  
                                                             THE	
  STATE	
  OF	
  TEXAS	
  
                                                                                 	
  
                                                                          Appellee	
  
                                                                                                                       	
  
                                                                                 	
  
                                       ON	
  APPEAL	
  FROM	
  THE	
  187th	
  DISTRICT	
  COURT	
  
                                                        OF	
  BEXAR	
  COUNTY	
  TEXAS	
  
                                                 CAUSE	
  NUMBER	
  2012-­‐CR-­‐6806
                                                                                                                       	
  
                                                                                 	
  
                                                       BRIEF	
  FOR	
  THE	
  APPELLANT	
  
	
             	
              	
        	
       	
           	
          	
          	
  
	
  
	
             	
              	
                	
              	
             	
            	
                                             EDWARD	
  F.	
  SHAUGHNESSY	
  
                                          	
              	
             	
                      	
                              	
  	
  	
  206	
  E.	
  Locust	
  Street	
  
	
             	
              	
                	
              	
             	
                            	
                             San	
  Antonio,	
  Texas	
  78212	
  
	
             	
              	
                	
              	
             	
                            	
                             (210)	
  212-­‐6700	
  
	
             	
              	
                	
              	
             	
                            	
                             (210)	
  212-­‐2178	
  (FAX)	
  
	
             	
              	
                	
              	
             	
                            	
                             Shaughnessy727@gmail.com	
  
	
             	
              	
                	
              	
             	
                            	
                             SBN	
  18134500	
  
                                                                                                                                             	
  	
  	
  
                                                                                       	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
                            	
   	
  	
  
       	
  
ORAL	
  ARGUMENT	
  WAIVED	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
               ATTORNEY	
  FOR	
  APPELLANT	
  
                                                                                                            	
  
	
                                                               	
  
                                                                                                                                                        PARTIES	
  AND	
  COUNSEL	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
TRIAL	
  COUNSEL	
  FOR	
  THE	
  STATE:	
  
	
  
DAVID	
  LUNAN	
  &	
  DARYL	
  HARRIS	
  
Assistant	
  Criminal	
  District	
  Attorneys	
  
101	
  W.	
  Nueva	
  
San	
  Antonio,	
  Texas	
  78205	
  
	
  
TRIAL	
  COUNSEL	
  FOR	
  APPELLANT:	
  
	
  
THERESA	
  CONNOLLY	
  
106	
  S.	
  St.	
  Mary’s	
  
San	
  Antonio,	
  Texas	
  78205	
  
	
  
	
  
APPELLANT’S	
  ATTORNEY	
  ON	
  APPEAL:	
  
	
  
EDWARD	
  F.	
  SHAUGHNESSY,	
  III	
                                                                                                                                         	
                                             	
                                             	
  
206	
  E.	
  Locust	
  Street	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
San	
  Antonio,	
  Texas	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
(210)	
  212-­‐6700	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
(210)	
  212-­‐2178	
  Fax	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
SBN	
  18134500	
  
	
  
	
  
TRIAL	
  JUDGE:	
  
	
  
RAYMOND	
  ANGELINI	
  
187th	
  Judicial	
  District	
  
Atascosa	
  County,	
  Texas	
  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ii
                     TABLE	
  OF	
  CONTENTS	
  

                                                          PAGE(S)

Parties and Counsel…………………………………………………………………………………ii

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………iii

Table of Authorities…………………………………………………………………………………iv

Brief for the Appellant………………………………………………………………………………5

Summary of the Argument…………………………………………………………………………7

Appellant’s Sole Point of Error……………………………………………………………………8

Conclusion and Prayer………………………………………………………………………………16

Certificate of Service………………………………………………………………………………….17

Certificate of Compliance……………………………………………………………………………18
                                  	
               	
  

                                 iii
                                           TABLE	
  OF	
  AUTHORITIES	
  
	
  
	
  

                                                                                                                    PAGE(S)	
  
                                                                                                                           	
  
STATE	
  CASE(S)	
  
	
  
Brooks	
  v.	
  State,	
  323	
  S.W.3d	
  893	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  2010)……………………………………………...……..13	
  
	
  
Dixon	
  v.	
  State	
  541	
  S.W.2d	
  437	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1976)……………………………...………………………..15	
  
	
  
Gear	
  v.	
  State,	
  340	
  S.W.3d	
  743	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  2011)………………………………………………………..13	
  
	
  
Gormany	
  v.	
  State,	
  640	
  S.W.2d	
  303	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1982)…………………………………………………15	
  
	
  
Jackson	
  v.	
  Virginia	
  443	
  U.S.	
  307,	
  99	
  S.	
  Ct.	
  2781,	
  61	
  L.Ed.2d	
  560	
  (1979)……………………………….13	
  
	
  
Moore	
  v	
  State,	
  640	
  S.W.2d	
  303	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1982)………………………………………………..…….15	
  
	
  
Padilla	
  v.	
  State,	
  326	
  S.W.3d	
  195	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  2010)………………………………………………….…13	
  
	
  
Spencer	
  v.	
  State,	
  628	
  S.W.2d	
  220	
  (Tex.	
  App.-­‐Corpus	
  Christi,	
  1982,	
  pet.	
  ref’d.)……………………….15	
  
	
  
Whatley	
  v.	
  State,	
  445	
  	
  S.W.3d	
  159,	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  	
  2014)………………………………………………...13	
  
	
  
Winfrey	
  v.	
  State,	
  393	
  S.W.3d	
  763	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  2013)………………………………...……...….………13	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
STATUTE(S)	
  AND	
  CODE(S)	
  
	
  
	
  
Tex.	
  Penal	
  Code	
  Ann.	
  §	
  29.03	
  (West	
  2014)……………………………………………………………………….8

                                                              iv
                                          NO.	
  04-­‐14-­‐00256-­‐CR	
  
                                                         	
  
	
  
	
  
JEFFREY	
  LEE,	
       	
        	
   §	
        COURT	
  OF	
  APPEALS,	
  FOURTH	
  
	
  
	
  	
   Appellant	
   	
         	
   §	
  
	
  
V.	
     	
      	
     	
        	
   §	
        COURT	
  OF	
  APPEALS	
  DISTRICT	
  
	
  
THE	
  STATE	
  OF	
  TEXAS,	
   	
    §	
  
	
  
	
  	
   Appellee	
   	
          	
   §	
        SAN	
  ANTONIO,	
  TEXAS	
  
	
  
	
  
                             BRIEF	
  FOR	
  THE	
  APPELLANT	
  
                                                  	
  
TO	
  THE	
  HONORABLE	
  COURT	
  OF	
  APPEALS:	
  
	
  	
  
	
       Now	
  comes	
  the	
  appellant,	
  Jeffrey	
  Lee,	
  and	
  files	
  this	
  brief	
  in	
  Cause	
  

No.	
   04-­‐14-­‐00256-­‐CR.	
   The	
   appellant	
   appeals	
   from	
   a	
   judgment	
   of	
  

conviction,	
   entered	
   against	
   him	
   on	
   April	
   4,	
   2014.	
   (C.R.-­‐50,51)	
   The	
  

appellant	
   was	
   indicted	
   by	
   a	
   Bexar	
   County	
   Grand	
   Jury	
   on	
   August	
   27,	
  

2012	
   for	
   the	
   offenses	
   of	
   Aggravated	
   Robbery	
   (Repeater)	
   in	
   cause	
  

number	
   2012-­‐CR-­‐6806.	
   (C.R.-­‐5)	
   The	
   appellant	
   exercised	
   his	
   right	
   to	
   a	
  

jury	
  trial.	
  The	
  appellant	
  was	
  found	
  guilty,	
  by	
  the	
  jury,	
  of	
  the	
  offense	
  as	
  

charged	
   in	
   the	
   indictment.	
   (C.R.-­‐48)	
   The	
   appellant’s	
   punishment	
   was	
  

assessed	
   by	
   the	
   jury,	
   at	
   twenty-­‐five	
   years	
   in	
   confinement	
   in	
   the	
   Texas	
  

Department	
   of	
   Criminal	
   Justice-­‐Institutional	
   Division	
   as	
   a	
   repeat	
  

                                                          5
offender.	
   (C.R.-­‐50,	
   51)	
   Notice	
   of	
   appeal	
   was	
   filed	
   thereafter	
   and	
   this	
  

appeal	
  has	
  followed.	
  (C.R.-­‐61)	
  

	
                                    	
  

                                                        6
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  SUMMARY	
  OF	
  ARGUMENT	
  

	
                      The	
  evidence	
  presented	
  by	
  the	
  State	
  of	
  Texas	
  was	
  legally	
  

insufficient	
  to	
  prove	
  that	
  the	
  appellant	
  was	
  the	
  perpetrator	
  of	
  the	
  

offense	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  failure	
  of	
  the	
  complainant	
  to	
  identify	
  the	
  

defendant/appellant	
  as	
  the	
  actor	
  who	
  committed	
  the	
  acts	
  alleged	
  in	
  the	
  

indictment.	
  

                        	
  

                        	
  

                        	
  

                        	
  

                        	
  

                        	
  

                        	
  

                                                                                                  	
  	
  	
  	
  
                                                                                                  	
  
                                                                                                  	
  
                                                                                                  	
  
                                                                                                  	
  
                                                                                                  	
  
                                                                                                  	
  
                                                                                                  	
  
                                                                                                  	
  
                                                                                                  	
  
                                                                                                  	
  
                                                                                                  	
  

                                                                                                                                                 7
                                                                                                                                                                                           APPELLANT’S	
  S0LE
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  POINT	
  OF	
  ERROR	
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   	
  
	
                                             The	
  evidence	
  is	
  legally	
  insufficient	
  to	
  support	
  the	
  judgment	
  of	
  

conviction	
  for	
  the	
  offense	
  alleged	
  in	
  the	
  indictment.	
  

                                                                                                                    	
  

                                                                                                                    	
  

                                                         STATEMENT	
  OF	
  APPLICABLE	
  FACTS	
  

	
                 As	
  noted	
  above	
  the	
  appellant	
  was	
  indicted	
  by	
  the	
  Bexar	
  County	
  

grand	
  jury	
  for	
  the	
  offense	
  of	
  Aggravated	
  Robbery.1	
  The	
  indictment	
  

alleged	
  in	
  pertinent	
  part:	
  “on	
  or	
  about	
  the	
  15th	
  day	
  of	
  January,	
  2012,	
  

Jeffrey	
  Lee,	
  while	
  in	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  committing	
  theft	
  of	
  property	
  and	
  with	
  

intent	
  to	
  maintain	
  control	
  of	
  said	
  property	
  did	
  intentionally	
  and	
  

knowingly	
  threaten	
  and	
  place	
  Javier	
  Muro	
  in	
  fear	
  of	
  imminent	
  bodily	
  

injury	
  and	
  death,	
  and	
  the	
  defendant	
  did	
  use	
  and	
  exhibit	
  a	
  deadly	
  

weapon,	
  to	
  wit:	
  a	
  firearm.”	
  (C.R.-­‐5)	
  

	
                 In	
  support	
  of	
  the	
  allegations	
  in	
  the	
  indictment	
  the	
  Sate	
  produced	
  

the	
  testimony	
  of	
  the	
  complainant/victim,	
  Javier	
  Muro2.	
  (R.R.4-­‐18)	
  	
  Muro	
  

proceeded	
  to	
  testify	
  as	
  to	
  the	
  events	
  that	
  occurred	
  on	
  the	
  night	
  of	
  

January	
  12,	
  2012.	
  	
  According	
  to	
  Muro,	
  he	
  along	
  with	
  his	
  co-­‐worker,	
  Gilda	
  

1
       Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 2014).
2
       Hereinafter referred to as Muro.
                                                                                                                   8
Hernandez,	
  had	
  completed	
  the	
  closing	
  of	
  their	
  place	
  of	
  employment3	
  at	
  

roughly	
  9:30	
  P.M.	
  and	
  were	
  in	
  the	
  parking	
  lot	
  of	
  the	
  store,	
  when	
  an	
  

individual	
  approached	
  Hernandez,	
  who	
  was	
  in	
  a	
  car	
  being	
  driven	
  by	
  her	
  

sister.	
  (R.R.4-­‐22,	
  29)	
  	
  The	
  individual	
  in	
  question	
  was	
  armed	
  with	
  a	
  gun	
  

and	
  was	
  aiming	
  it	
  at	
  Gilda.	
  (R.R.4-­‐29,	
  30)	
  	
  Gilda	
  and	
  the	
  driver	
  then	
  fled	
  

the	
  scene	
  in	
  their	
  vehicle.	
  (R.R.4-­‐30)	
  At	
  that	
  point	
  the	
  actor	
  approached	
  

Muro	
  who	
  was	
  afoot.	
  (R.R.4-­‐30)	
  Before	
  Muro	
  was	
  able	
  to	
  enter	
  his	
  

vehicle	
  the	
  actor	
  aimed	
  the	
  weapon	
  at	
  Muro	
  and	
  demanded	
  his	
  wallet.	
  

(R.R.4-­‐30)	
  The	
  wallet	
  was	
  then	
  given	
  to	
  the	
  actor.	
  	
  (R.R.4-­‐30)	
  The	
  actor	
  

then	
  demanded	
  that	
  Muro	
  open	
  the	
  store	
  and	
  the	
  two	
  then	
  proceeded	
  

into	
  the	
  store,	
  at	
  which	
  time	
  the	
  actor	
  demanded	
  that	
  Muro	
  open	
  the	
  

store’s	
  safe.	
  (R.R4-­‐30,	
  31)	
  Due	
  to	
  a	
  time	
  lock	
  on	
  the	
  main	
  safe	
  the	
  safe	
  

could	
  not	
  be	
  opened	
  immediately.	
  	
  Consequently,	
  the	
  cash	
  drawers	
  were	
  

given	
  to	
  the	
  actor	
  who	
  removed	
  an	
  unknown	
  amount	
  of	
  cash	
  from	
  the	
  

cash	
  drawers	
  and	
  thereafter	
  fled	
  the	
  scene	
  on	
  foot.	
  (R.R.4-­‐35,	
  36,	
  55)	
  	
  

	
          With	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  question	
  of	
  the	
  identity	
  of	
  the	
  actor,	
  Muro	
  

related	
  that	
  the	
  perpetrator	
  was	
  a	
  black	
  man	
  wearing	
  a	
  mask	
  over	
  his	
  

face	
  that	
  revealed	
  only	
  his	
  eyes,	
  which	
  he	
  described	
  as	
  “big	
  wide”	
  or	
  

“bug-­‐eyed”.	
  (R.R.4-­‐39)	
  Shortly	
  after	
  the	
  actor	
  had	
  departed	
  the	
  scene,	
  

3
       A Dollar General store on Walzem Road. (R.R.4-19)
                                                             9
law	
  enforcement	
  officers	
  arrived	
  at	
  the	
  scene.	
  (R.R.4-­‐57)	
  At	
  that	
  time	
  

Muro	
  gave	
  a	
  statement	
  to	
  the	
  investigating	
  officers.	
  	
  The	
  following	
  day	
  

law	
  enforcement	
  came	
  to	
  the	
  store	
  with	
  a	
  “photo	
  array”	
  in	
  an	
  effort	
  to	
  

obtain	
  an	
  identification	
  of	
  the	
  actor.	
  (R.R.4-­‐65,	
  66)	
  After	
  using	
  a	
  folder	
  

to	
  cover	
  the	
  lower	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  six	
  faces	
  displayed	
  in	
  the	
  photo	
  array	
  Muro	
  

chose	
  photo	
  number	
  two	
  as	
  the	
  one	
  depicting	
  his	
  assailant	
  and	
  

remarked	
  to	
  the	
  officer:	
  “This	
  is	
  the	
  guy”.	
  (R.R.4-­‐66)	
  Muro	
  then	
  

proceeded	
  to	
  circle	
  his	
  selection	
  on	
  the	
  photo	
  array.	
  (R.R.4-­‐67)	
  Muro	
  

was	
  never	
  asked	
  by	
  the	
  prosecutor	
  whether	
  the	
  individual	
  who	
  had	
  

committed	
  the	
  assault/robbery	
  on	
  him	
  on	
  the	
  night	
  in	
  question,	
  was	
  the	
  

defendant	
  present	
  in	
  court.	
  	
  As	
  a	
  result,	
  Muro	
  never	
  identified	
  the	
  

defendant/appellant	
  as	
  the	
  actor	
  who	
  had	
  committed	
  the	
  offense	
  as	
  

outlined	
  by	
  Muro.	
  	
  

	
           Muro’s	
  co-­‐worker,	
  Gilda	
  Hernandez4	
  also	
  testified	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  the	
  

prosecution.	
  (R.R.4-­‐94)	
  Hernandez	
  also	
  testified	
  that	
  the	
  actor	
  was	
  a	
  

black	
  man	
  wearing	
  a	
  hoodie	
  sweatshirt.	
  	
  Some	
  two	
  weeks	
  later,	
  

Hernandez	
  was	
  asked	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  a	
  photo	
  array	
  identification	
  

procedure	
  conducted	
  by	
  investigators	
  with	
  the	
  Bexar	
  County	
  Sheriff’s	
  

Department.	
  	
  At	
  that	
  time	
  Hernandez	
  viewed	
  a	
  photo	
  array	
  that	
  

4
       Hereinafter referred to as Hernandez.
                                                         10
contained	
  six	
  photographs	
  and	
  asked	
  whether	
  the	
  actor	
  was	
  depicted	
  in	
  

any	
  of	
  the	
  photographs.	
  Hernandez	
  then	
  informed	
  that	
  the	
  actor	
  was	
  

depicted	
  in	
  photo	
  number	
  two	
  which	
  she	
  then	
  circled	
  and	
  initialed.	
  

(R.R.4-­‐105,	
  106)	
  	
  Once	
  again,	
  the	
  witness	
  was	
  not	
  asked	
  whether	
  the	
  

individual	
  who	
  was	
  the	
  actor	
  on	
  the	
  night	
  in	
  question	
  was	
  in	
  fact	
  the	
  

defendant/appellant.	
  	
  Moreover,	
  Hernandez	
  was	
  not	
  asked	
  whether	
  the	
  

individual	
  whom	
  she	
  identified	
  as	
  photo	
  number	
  two	
  was	
  the	
  

defendant/appellant.	
  	
  

	
           After	
  obtaining	
  fingerprints	
  from	
  the	
  scene,	
  later	
  shown	
  to	
  be	
  

those	
  of	
  the	
  defendant’s,	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  Sheriff’s	
  Department	
  were	
  able	
  

to	
  locate	
  a	
  photograph	
  of	
  the	
  defendant/appellant	
  which	
  was	
  used	
  to	
  

compile	
  the	
  above-­‐described	
  photo	
  arrays.	
  (R.R.5-­‐30	
  thru	
  44)	
  

	
           The	
  final	
  witness	
  to	
  relate	
  information	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  identity	
  of	
  

the	
  actor	
  was	
  Detective	
  Ward	
  of	
  the	
  Bexar	
  County	
  Sheriff’s	
  Department.5	
  	
  

(R.R.5-­‐60)	
  Ward	
  related	
  that	
  he	
  had	
  sought	
  and	
  obtained	
  an	
  arrest	
  

warrant	
  for	
  an	
  individual	
  named	
  Jeffrey	
  Lee	
  after	
  obtaining	
  a	
  

photograph	
  of	
  an	
  individual	
  whose	
  fingerprints	
  resulted	
  in	
  a	
  “hit”	
  on	
  a	
  

computer	
  generated	
  fingerprint	
  search	
  which	
  utilized	
  the	
  fingerprints	
  

obtained	
  at	
  the	
  scene	
  of	
  the	
  offense.	
  (R.R.5-­‐73)	
  Ward	
  also	
  related	
  that	
  he	
  

5
       Hereinafter referred to as Ward.
                                                          11
had	
  utilized	
  a	
  photo	
  spread	
  to	
  obtain	
  possible	
  identifications	
  of	
  the	
  

perpetrator	
  from	
  Muro	
  and	
  Hernandez.	
  (R.R.5-­‐76,	
  84)	
  Ward	
  related	
  that	
  

those	
  two	
  had	
  both	
  indicated	
  that	
  the	
  individual	
  depicted	
  in	
  photo	
  

number	
  two	
  was	
  the	
  perpetrator.	
  (R.R.5-­‐76,	
  77)	
  Ward	
  also	
  related	
  that	
  

the	
  person	
  identified	
  in	
  photo	
  number	
  two,	
  by	
  Muro,	
  was	
  an	
  individual	
  

named	
  Jeffrey	
  Lee	
  and	
  the	
  person	
  depicted	
  in	
  that	
  photograph	
  was	
  the	
  

defendant	
  sitting	
  in	
  the	
  courtroom.	
  	
  (R.R.5-­‐86)	
  He	
  related	
  the	
  same	
  

scenario	
  regarding	
  the	
  witness	
  Hernandez.	
  (R.R.5-­‐87)	
  	
  	
  

	
        It	
  is	
  crucial	
  to	
  note	
  that	
  the	
  State’s	
  multiple	
  stage	
  attempt	
  at	
  

identifying	
  the	
  appellant/defendant	
  as	
  the	
  perpetrator	
  of	
  the	
  robbery	
  

did	
  not	
  include	
  any	
  evidence	
  that	
  the	
  individual	
  purportedly	
  depicted	
  in	
  

photo	
  number	
  two	
  was	
  the	
  same	
  Jeffrey	
  Lee	
  that	
  had	
  committed	
  the	
  

offense	
  in	
  question.	
  	
  In	
  order	
  for	
  the	
  fact-­‐finder	
  to	
  conclude	
  that	
  the	
  

defendant/appellant	
  was	
  the	
  Jeffrey	
  Lee	
  arrested	
  and	
  identified	
  through	
  

the	
  use	
  of	
  the	
  photograph	
  in	
  question	
  the	
  record	
  would	
  have	
  to	
  contain	
  

evidence	
  that	
  the	
  photograph	
  in	
  question	
  was	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  

defendant/appellant.	
  	
  That	
  evidence	
  is	
  lacking.	
  	
  What	
  is	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  

record	
  is	
  testimony	
  that	
  the	
  individual	
  purportedly	
  depicted	
  in	
  the	
  

photograph	
  was	
  named	
  Jeffrey	
  Lee	
  and	
  that	
  an	
  individual	
  bearing	
  that	
  

name	
  was	
  in	
  the	
  courtroom.	
   	
               	
        	
  

                                                           12
	
  
	
     	
     	
     ARGUMENTS	
  AND	
  AUTHORITIES	
  
	
  
	
     	
  
                           STANDARD OF REVIEW

              In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a

conviction a reviewing court is mandated to consider all of the evidence in

a light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether, based on that

evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom a rational fact finder could

have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Gear v. State,

340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). See: Jackson v. Virginia 443 U.S.
307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). A reviewing court is required to

defer to the jury’s credibility determinations because the jury is sole arbiter

of the credibility of the witnesses Winfrey v. State, id. That standard gives

full play to the responsibility of the jury to fairly resolve conflicts in the

testimony, to weigh the evidence and to draw reasonable inferences from

basic facts to ultimate facts. Whatley v. State, 445 S.W.3d 159, (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014). The presence of conflicting inferences during the course of a

trial gives rise to a presumption that the trier of fact resolved the conflicts

in the favor of the prosecution. Padilla v. State, 326 S.W.3d 195 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2010). The fact-finder is the exclusive judge of the credibility of

the witnesses and of the weight to be assigned to their testimony. Brooks v.

State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

                                        13
	
        The	
  ultimate	
  fact	
  that	
  was	
  to	
  be	
  resolved	
  in	
  the	
  instant	
  case	
  was	
  

the	
  identity	
  of	
  the	
  individual	
  that	
  wielded	
  the	
  gun	
  at	
  the	
  Dollar	
  General	
  

on	
  the	
  night	
  in	
  question.	
  	
  Neither	
  of	
  the	
  two	
  witnesses	
  to	
  that	
  event	
  

related	
  that	
  the	
  appellant/defendant	
  present	
  in	
  the	
  courtroom	
  was	
  that	
  

individual.	
  	
  Hence	
  the	
  evidence	
  is	
  legally	
  insufficient	
  unless	
  a	
  reasonable	
  

inference	
  can	
  be	
  drawn	
  that	
  the	
  person	
  identified	
  through	
  the	
  photo	
  

array	
  was	
  the	
  individual	
  in	
  the	
  courtroom.	
  	
  That	
  inference	
  could	
  be	
  

drawn	
  only	
  if	
  the	
  evidence	
  revealed	
  that	
  the	
  photograph	
  in	
  question	
  

was	
  of	
  the	
  individual	
  in	
  the	
  courtroom.	
  	
  That	
  evidence	
  is	
  lacking.	
  	
  Ward	
  

testified	
  only	
  that	
  the	
  two	
  witnesses	
  had	
  identified	
  the	
  person	
  in	
  the	
  

photograph	
  as	
  their	
  assailant	
  and	
  the	
  photograph	
  appeared	
  to	
  be	
  that	
  of	
  

the	
  individual	
  in	
  the	
  courtroom.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  reasonable	
  inference	
  that,	
  

because	
  of	
  the	
  existence	
  of	
  a	
  photograph	
  of	
  a	
  person,	
  who	
  might	
  in	
  fact	
  

be	
  the	
  accused,	
  that	
  the	
  photograph	
  is	
  in	
  fact	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  accused.	
  	
  That	
  

fact	
  could	
  have	
  potentially	
  been	
  supplied	
  by	
  one	
  or	
  both	
  of	
  the	
  

witnesses.	
  	
  It	
  was	
  not.	
  	
  Officer	
  Ward	
  could	
  have	
  taken	
  a	
  “booking”	
  photo	
  

of	
  the	
  individual	
  who	
  had	
  been	
  arrested	
  and	
  charged	
  with	
  the	
  offense	
  in	
  

question	
  and	
  inquired	
  of	
  the	
  witnesses	
  if	
  the	
  individual	
  depicted	
  in	
  the	
  

booking	
  photograph	
  was	
  the	
  individual	
  who	
  had	
  committed	
  the	
  assault	
  

conduct	
  that	
  formed	
  the	
  basis	
  for	
  the	
  indictment.	
  	
  He	
  did	
  not.	
  

                                                           14
	
         The	
  evidence	
  presented	
  by	
  the	
  State,	
  on	
  the	
  issue	
  of	
  identification,	
  

required	
  the	
  jury	
  to	
  infer	
  facts	
  that	
  were	
  not	
  reasonable:	
  that	
  being	
  that	
  

the	
  identifying	
  photo	
  was	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  individual	
  who	
  had	
  been	
  arrested	
  

for	
  the	
  offense	
  in	
  question	
  and	
  appeared	
  in	
  court	
  to	
  answer	
  the	
  

indictment.	
  	
  That	
  inference	
  amounts	
  to	
  an	
  unreasonable	
  one	
  and	
  should	
  

not	
  be	
  sanctioned	
  by	
  this	
  Court.	
  	
  As	
  a	
  result	
  the	
  evidence	
  is	
  legally	
  

insufficient	
  to	
  support	
  the	
  judgment	
  of	
  conviction.	
  See:	
  Gormany	
  v.	
  State,	
  

640	
  S.W.2d	
  303	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1982);	
  Moore	
  v	
  State,	
  640	
  S.W.2d	
  303	
  

(Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1982);	
  Dixon	
  V.	
  State	
  541	
  S.W.2d	
  437	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  

1976);	
  Spencer	
  v.	
  State,	
  628	
  S.W.2d	
  220	
  (Tex.	
  App.-­‐Corpus	
  Christi,	
  1982,	
  

pet.	
  ref’d.).	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  
                                        	
  
	
                                                           	
  

	
                                                           	
  	
  

	
  

	
  

                                        	
  

                                        	
  

                                                           15
                                         	
  

                                         	
  

                                         PRAYER	
  FOR	
  RELIEF	
  

	
  
          WHEREFORE,	
  PREMISES	
  CONSIDERED,	
  Appellant,	
  prays	
  that	
  this	
  

Court,	
  reverse	
  the	
  judgment	
  of	
  the	
  trial	
  Court	
  and	
  remand	
  the	
  cause	
  for	
  

the	
  entry	
  of	
  a	
  judgment	
  of	
  acquittal.	
  	
  

Edward F. Shaughnessy, III
EDWARD	
  F.	
  SHAUGHNESSY,	
  III	
  
206	
  E.	
  Locust	
  
San	
  Antonio,	
  Texas	
  78212	
  
(210)	
  212-­‐6700	
  
(210)	
  212-­‐2178	
  (fax)	
  
	
  
Shaughnessy727@gmail.com	
  
Attorney	
  for	
  the	
  appellant	
  
	
  

                                                              	
  

                                                              	
  

                                                              	
  

                                                              	
  

                                                              	
  

                                                              	
  

                                                              	
  

                                                            16
                                                           	
  

                                                           	
  

                                         CERTIFICATE	
  OF	
  SERVICE	
  

	
        I,	
  Edward	
  F.	
  Shaughnessy,	
  III	
  ,	
  attorney	
  for	
  the	
  appellant,	
  hereby	
  

certify	
  that	
  a	
  true	
  and	
  correct	
  copy	
  of	
  the	
  instant	
  brief	
  was	
  served	
  on	
  

Nicholas	
  LaHood,	
  attorney	
  for	
  the	
  appellee,	
  by	
  United	
  States	
  Mail,	
  by	
  

mailing	
  the	
  document	
  to	
  101	
  W.	
  Nueva,	
  San	
  Antonio,	
  Texas	
  78205	
  on	
  

this	
  the	
  _4_	
  day	
  of	
  March,	
  2015.	
  

	
  

Edward F. Shaughnessy, III
Edward	
  F.	
  Shaughnessy,	
  III	
  
Attorney	
  for	
  the	
  appellant	
  
                                                           	
  

                                                           	
  

	
                         	
  

                                                           	
  

                                  	
  

                                  	
  

                                  	
  

                                  	
  

                                  	
  

                                                          17
                          CERTIFICATE	
  OF	
  COMPLIANCE	
  

	
      I,	
  Edward	
  F.	
  Shaughnessy,	
  III,	
  attorney	
  for	
  the	
  appellant,	
  hereby	
  

certify	
  that	
  the	
  instant	
  document	
  contains	
  2281	
  words.	
  

Edward F. Shaughnessy, III
Edward	
  F.	
  Shaughnessy,	
  III	
  

                                                   18