Jorge Marines v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-02-00092-CR

Jorge MARINES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001-CR-1471

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 5, 2003

AFFIRMED

A jury found defendant, Jorges Marines, guilty of aggravated robbery, and assessed punishment at twenty-five years' confinement and a $5000 fine. On appeal, defendant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. Because all issues of law are settled, our opinion only advises the parties of the court's decision and the basic reasons for it. See Tex. R. App. 47.4. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

Defendant asserts the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that he was the individual who robbed Anthony Alfaro, the complainant, because of discrepancies between Alfaro's pretrial identification and defendant's appearance when he was apprehended. Defendant also contends Alfaro's in-court identification was tainted by an impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification. We review the sufficiency of the evidence under the appropriate standards of review. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979) (legal sufficiency); Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (same); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 6-7, 10-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (factual sufficiency); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (same). The standard of review is the same in both direct and circumstantial evidence cases. Kutzner v. State, 994 S.W.2d 180, 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

During trial, Alfaro testified that he looked defendant in the eyes, and he got a good look at defendant's face. Alfaro identified defendant as his assailant. Defendant did not complain about or object to Alfaro's pretrial identification or his in-court identification; thus, he has waived any complaint on appeal that the in-court identification was tainted by an impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification. Perry v. State, 703 S.W.2d 668, 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); In re G.A.T., 16 S.W.3d 818, 825-26 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). Although there were some discrepancies between the description Alfaro provided to the police after the assault and defendant's appearance when he was apprehended a short time later, these discrepancies do not render the evidence at trial insufficient. Alfaro's in-court identification provides legally and factually sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant was the individual who assaulted Alfaro.

After considering defendant's arguments and having considered the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Dewberry, 4 S.W.3d at 740. Further, reviewing all the evidence in a neutral light, we cannot say the evidence of guilt is so weak as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or the adverse finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the available evidence. See Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 10-11. We need not further detail the relevant evidence. See Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 135-36. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH