CHRISTOPHER MARK ADAMS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 377th District Court of Victoria County

NUMBER 13-01-301-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

CHRISTOPHER MARK ADAMS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 377th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Ya ez and Castillo

Opinion by Justice Castillo

Appellant, Christopher Mark Adams, was convicted by a jury of robbery and sentenced to ninety-nine years in prison as a repeat felony offender.[1] In a single point of error, he attacks the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence identifying him as the person who committed the crime. We affirm.

As this is a memorandum opinion not designated for publication and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here. Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

We review the legal sufficiency of the evidence under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), and the factual sufficiency of the evidence under the standard of Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1,11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). As to the issue of identity, we note that the victim had several opportunities to view appellant both at the scene and shortly after the event and made an unequivocal identification of appellant both in the photographic line-up and at trial. Moreover, there was corroborating evidence provided by another witness who knew appellant. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict, we find that a rational trier of facts could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by Jackson v. Virginia, and so find the evidence legally sufficient to sustain the conviction.

In support of his claim of factual insufficiency, appellant cites Ward v. State, 48 S.W.3d 383 (Tex. App.BWaco 2001, pet. ref=d), in which the Waco court of appeals found the evidence factually insufficient in an aggravated robbery case. We find the facts in the instant case significantly different from those in Ward. Viewing all the evidence, without the prism of the Alight most favorable to the prosecution@ as required by Johnson, we find that the evidence supporting the conviction is neither so weak as to render the verdict clearly wrong and unjust nor is the jury=s verdict against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence presented at trial.

We overrule appellant=s sole issue on appeal and affirm the conviction of the trial court.

ERRLINDA CASTILLO

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P.47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 11th day of July, 2002.

[1]Tex. Pen. Code Ann. '29.02(a)(2)(Vernon 1994).