RODERICK SHERARD FREEMAN,FROM A DISTRICT COURT APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT DALLAS
NO. 05-88-00990-CR
RODERICK SHERARD FREEMAN,FROM A DISTRICT COURT
 
                APPELLANT,
 
v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 
                APPELLEE.OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
 
 
 
BEFORE JUSTICES STEWART, ROWE, AND OVARD
OPINION PER CURIAM
MARCH 23, 1989
        Roderick Sherard Freeman appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. After appellant was found guilty in a bench trial, punishment was assessed at twenty years' confinement. In his sole point of error he asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. We disagree; accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
        The evidence adduced at trial shows that on November 27, 1987 at 11:00 p.m. a black male knocked at the back door of a restaurant. The assistant manager opened the door and asked what the man wanted. He asked if "Mark," an employee, was there. She told him that Mark had left a few minutes earlier. As she closed the door the man pulled the door open, stuck a revolver in her ribs and said "[t]his is a stick-up, I want your money". The assistant manager yelled to her employees to call the police and she pushed the door closed. She then called the police and gave them a description of the man.
        The following day, she spoke with Mark. She related her conversation with Mark to the police. The police showed the assistant manager six pictures several days after the incident; she selected a photo of appellant as being a picture of the man that placed the gun in her ribs and demanded money. On the day of trial the complainant was taken into a room where six men were, and was asked to pick the robber from among the men. She said that the robber was not in the room. However, shortly thereafter in the courtroom she identified appellant as the robber while he sat at counsel table.
        The gravamen of appellant's point of error is that complainant's inability to identify appellant at a pre-trial show-up vitiated her identification of appellant. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court's inquiry is limited to determining whether, examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Sutherlin v. State, 682 S.W.2d 546, 548-549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are to be resolved by the trier of fact. Bonham v. State, 680 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) cert. denied 474 U.S. 865 (1985).
        Bearing the foregoing in mind, we turn to the evidence presented. The complainant identified appellant as the robber at a photo lineup eight days after the crime occurred and during the trial. The fact that she failed to identify him in the jury room just prior to trial goes to the weight of her identification testimony, not to her credibility or to the sufficiency of the evidence. Karpeal v. State, 628 S.W.2d 520, 524 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1982, pet. ref'd). The trial court as the trier of fact, chose to believe her identification testimony. In light of the evidence, such belief was not unreasonable. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. Appellant's point of error is overruled.        
        The judgment is affirmed.
 
                                                          PER CURIAM
 
DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 90
88-00990.F
 
 
File Date[01-02-89]
File Name[880990]