WPC3% # VUNa % 0U: w@ 4 4 05C 0Dx 0J 0TZ 0^b 0h 0r( 0| 0 0 1u,U, 0d B1U,NU>zU*B) D3 DC> AM 0@m 0v~=v AO## 0D$ D/$ B%HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($  XXXX` ` 4XTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT,cAZ"Arial Regular ,D-U./D0D12D345Ӏ} 3|x@((3$ !  X XXX` 4XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T     0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$'dxd))))7Border 1dd-+C << G("$      !  #d#'  ( `   4  X \RA'\  (   YYY FILED(X May28,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.(AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#'  ( `   4  X \RA'\   $         Ӏ  Theamountofmoneytakenwasbetweeneightandninedollars. c !#d#'  ( `   4  X \RA'\   $       Ӏ    Ondirectandcrossexaminations,Gentryacknowledgedthathehadtwopriorfelonyconvictions,oneforcriminaldamagetopropertyandonefortheft.TheconvictionsoccurredinGeorgiain1985.  !#d#'  ( `   4  X \RA'\   $           Doddtestifiedoutofthejuryspresencethathehadarrestedtheappellantonprioroccasions.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &&&Xd&#&&Xd#'  ( `   4  X \RA'\    X    ӛ7gXXdd7  р@ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEٜL,.+;+'h|` . `Lߛ@ ATKNOXVILLE@ APRIL1996SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  * C.C.A.#03C019507CR00205  APPELLEE,  * HAMILTONCOUNTYVS.     * Hon.DouglasA.MeyerTOMMYNORWOOD,  * (Robbery)  APPELLANT. *FortheAppellant:    FortheAppelleeLarryRoddy     CharlesW.Burson723McCallieAve.    AttorneyGeneral&ReporterChattanooga,TN37403   450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493      ElizabethT.Ryan      Asst.AttorneyGeneral        450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493      WilliamH.Cox,III      DistrictAttorneyGeneral      H.C.Bright      Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral      600MarketStreetSuite310      Chattanooga,TN37402            OPINIONFILED:___________AFFIRMEDWilliamM.Barker,Judge                      @ OPINION     Theappellant,TommyNorwood,wasconvictedofrobbery,aclassCfelony.AsaRangeIII,persistentoffender,hewassentencedtoelevenyearsintheDepartmentofCorrection.Onappeal,hechallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidenceandthetrialcourtsfailuretosuppressidentificationtestimony.Wefindnoerrorandaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.  IntheearlymorninghoursofOctober15,1993,thevictim,BuddyGentry,wasdrivingtohishomeinChattanooga,Tennessee,whenhiscarranoutofgas.Gentrycoastedhiscartoastopnearthe23rdStreetFleaMarket.HewalkedtoagasstationonDoddsAvenueandfilledacanwithgasoline.Ashereturnedtohiscar,hewasapproachedbytheappellant,whoaskedforalight.TheappellantthenstruckGentryintheface,causingGentrytofalltotheground.Theappellantthreatenedto hurtGentryandheldhimontheground.TheappellantwentthroughGentryspockets,andhetookhiswalletandsomeloosechange. /   ׀Theappellantthenfled.  Gentryreturnedtohiscar,putthegasolineinit,anddrovehome.Hecalledthepoliceandgavethemadescriptionofthemanwhorobbedhim.Hetoldofficersthattheassailanthadbeenwearingabrownplaidshirtandbrowncorduroytrousers.GentrywaslatershownseveralphotographsbyChattanoogaPoliceDetectiveBobbyDodd.Gentryselectedtheappellantfromtheseriesofphotographs.Helateridentifiedtheappellantatthepreliminaryhearing,andhealsoidentifiedtheappellantattrial.  Gentryinsistedthathegota goodlookattheappellantbecausetherewasastreetlightnearthesceneandlightfromanearbybuilding.Gentrycouldnot,however,recalltheexactstreethewasonorthenamesofanyofthebusinessesinthearea.Hedidnotrecalltestifyingatthepreliminaryhearingabout flashinglights,nordidheremembertellingthepolicethattheappellantsshirthadbeen blueorbrown. 0   כ̀  DetectiveBobbyDoddtestifiedthathewasdrivingwestnear19thStreetandWatkinsAvenueatapproximately3:00a.m.Theareawasafewblocksnorthof23rdandRandolph.Doddstoppedtotalkto atall,blackmaleandtorunacheckforanyoutstandingwarrants.Ashedid,DoddsawtheappellantwalkingnorthonWatkins.Doddknewtheappellant,andhegesturedforhimtostop. 1   ׀Doddtalkedtotheappellantandranacheckforoutstandingwarrants.Theappellantsaidhe wasinahurryand hadtogo.Hewascarryingatrashbaglinerandappearedtobenervous.  Aftertheappellantleft,DoddreceivedthereportabouttherobberythatϜhadoccurrednear23rdandRandolph.Thedescriptionoftheassailant,specifically,hisclothes,appearedtomatchtheappellant.WhenDoddwasunabletofindtheappellant,hedrovetothevictimshomewhereapatrolmanwastakingBuddyGentrysstatement.DoddreturnedthefollowingdaytoshowGentryaseriesofphotographs.AccordingtoDodd,Gentryselectedtheappellantsphotograph immediately.Oncrossexamination,Doddsaidthatthemanhehadbeentalkingtowhenhesawtheappellantwassixfeetsixinchestall,hadbeenwearing alldarkclothing,and obviouslydidnotmatchthedescriptionoftheassailant.Hesaidthattheareanear23rdStreetwas welllitwithstreetlightsanddirectlightfromnearbybuildings.̛̜@ I   Whenthesufficiencyoftheevidenceischallenged,thestandardforreviewbyanappellatecourtiswhether,afterconsideringtheevidenceinalightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.SeeJacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,31819(1979);Statev.Duncan,698S.W.2d63,67(Tenn.1985);Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).Onappeal,theStateisentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceandtoallreasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmaybedrawntherefrom.Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,836(Tenn.1978).Indeterminingthesufficiencyoftheevidence,thiscourtdoesnotreweightheevidence,id.,andthiscourtdoesnotsubstituteitsinferencesforthosedrawnbythetrieroffact.Liakasv.State,199Tenn.298,286S.W.2d856,859(1956).  Robbery istheintentionalorknowingtheftofpropertyfromthepersonofanotherbyviolenceorputtingthepersoninfear.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913401(a).Aperson actsintentionallywithrespecttothenatureoftheconductortoaresultoftheconductwhenitisthepersonsconsciousobjectiveordesiretoengageintheconductorcausetheresult.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911302(a).Aperson actsknowinglywithrespecttotheconductortocircumstancessurroundingtheconductwhenthepersonisawareofthenatureoftheconductorthatthecircumstancesexist.Apersonactsknowinglywithrespecttoaresultofthepersonsconductwhenthepersonisawarethattheconductisreasonablycertaintocausetheresult.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911302(b).  Here,theevidenceoverwhelminglysupportsthejurysverdictwithrespecttotheelementsoftheoffense.Theappellantsmaincontentionisthattheevidencedidnotsupportthevictimsidentificationofhimastheassailant.Wedisagree.Thevictimsaidthathegotagoodlookattheappellantduringtheoffense.Hegaveadescriptionoftheappellantimmediatelyaftertheoffenseandselectedtheappellantfromaseriesofphotographs.Thevictimalsoidentifiedtheappellantatthepreliminaryhearingandatthetrial.Thejurywaswellwithinitsprerogativetoaccredittheprosecutionsevidenceinthisregard.  Insupportofhisargument,theappellantclaimsthatthevictimrecantedhistestimonyaftertrial.Atthehearingonthemotionforanewtrial,thevictimtestifiedthathemadeawrittenstatementafterthetrial,whichstated,inpart: Itestifiedthat[theappellant]wasthepersonwhorobbedme.Iwaswrong.However,thevictimalsotestifiedthathewasconvictedofanoffenseafterthetrialandincarceratedonthesameflooroftheprisonastheappellant.Theappellant forcedhimtowritethestatementandthevictimdidsooutoffear.Thevictimreiteratedthattheappellantwasthemanwhorobbedhim,justashehadtestifiedattrial.Forobviousreasons,thetrialcourtrejectedthewritten recantationandoverruledthemotionforanewtrial.SeeStatev.PhillipLloydHerndon,No.03C019303CR00098(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,May11,1994)(courtrejectedrecantedtestimony).  Accordingly,theevidencewassufficientforthejurytohavefoundthattheappellantcommittedrobbery.Theappellantisnotentitledtoreliefonthisground.@ II   Theappellantarguesthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtosuppressthevictimsincourtidentification.Heclaimsthatthephotographiclineupwasprejudicial,thatthevictimsidentificationwasunreliable,andthatthevictimmadeawrittenrecantationafterthetrial.TheStatemaintainsthatthetrialcourtproperlyoverruledtheappellantsmotiontosuppresstheidentification.Weagree.  Apretrialconfrontationprocedureviolatesdueprocessif,underthetotalityofthecircumstances,theprocedureis unnecessarilysuggestiveandconducivetoirreparablemistakenidentification.Stovallv.Denno,388U.S.293,302(1967).Ifaprocedureisundulysuggestive,thequestioniswhethertheidentificationwasnonethelessreliable.Neilv.Biggers,409U.S.188,199(1972).InBiggers,theCourtlistedfactorstobeconsideredinanalyzingthereliabilityoftheidentification:8 8 1.theopportunityofthewitnesstoviewthecriminalatthetimeofthecrime;8 8 2.thewitnesssdegreeofattentionatthetimeofthecrime;8 8 3.theaccuracyofthewitnessspriordescription;8 8 4.thelevelofcertaintydemonstratedattheconfrontation;and8 8 5.thetimeelapsedbetweenthecrimeandtheconfrontation.409U.S.at199.IfacourtdeterminesthatundertheBiggersstandardapretrialconfrontationwassoimpermissiblysuggestivethatitviolatedanaccusedsrighttodueprocess,bothoutofcourtandincourtidentificationsareexcluded.Sloanv.State,584S.W.2d461,470(Tenn.Crim.App.1978);seeStatev.Philpott,882S.W.2d394,399(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).  Here,theappellantfailedtoshowthatthephotographicarrayshowntothevictimwassuggestive.Thearrayconsistedofphotographsofsixmenwhoweresimilarinappearance.Thephotographswere mugshotsdepictingtheindividualsfacesandshoulders.Allofthemenhadsimilarhairstylesandmustaches.Thebackgroundsinthephotographswerethesame.ThevictimtestifiedthathewasshownthephotosbyDetectiveDodd.DodddidnotsuggestanyofthephotographstoGentry.BothGentryandDoddtestifiedthatGentryimmediatelyselectedtheappellantsphotograph.Thus,therewasnothingsuggestiveabouttheidentificationprocedure.SeeStatev.Philpott,882S.W.2dat399,n.6.  Moreover,theBiggersfactorssupportafindingthattheidentificationwasreliable.Therecordindicatesthatthevictimhadafacetofaceconfrontationwiththeappellantatthescene.Therewaslightfromstreetlightsandnearbybuildings.Thevictimgaveadescriptionoftheappellantimmediatelyaftertheoffense.AccordingtoDetectiveDodd,thevictimsdescriptionoftheassailantsclothesmatchedthosewornbytheappellant.Doddalsosaidthatthevictim immediatelyselectedtheappellantfromaphotographicarrayonthedayaftertheoffense.Thevictimsubsequentlyidentifiedtheappellantatthepreliminaryhearingandattrial.Accordingly,theappellantisnotentitledtoreliefonthisground.  Thejudgmentisaffirmed.        ___________________________        WilliamM.Barker,Judge____________________________GaryR.Wade,Judge____________________________DavidH.Welles,Judge