11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
David Pedraza Figueroa
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-03-00191-CR – Appeal from Harris County
State of Texas
Appellee
The jury convicted David Pedraza Figueroa of aggravated robbery and assessed his punishment at confinement for 25 years. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she states that she has thoroughly read the entire record three times combing for errors that were preserved and that would support the prosecution of this appeal. Counsel states that she has reviewed all the contested issues at trial, including the lesser included offense of robbery, the motion to suppress identification testimony and identification procedures, and the disqualification of a potential juror. Counsel concludes that, after researching the applicable law, she has found no reversible error. Counsel states that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous.
Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. Jacinto Jauregui testified that appellant held a revolver to his head and demanded his wallet and his money. Jauregui identified appellant not only in a videotape lineup but also in open court. The evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229 (Tex.Cr.App.2002); Goodman v. State, 66 S.W.3d 283 (Tex.Cr.App.2001); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.2000); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex.Cr.App.2000); Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Cr.App.1997); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1996).
We agree with appellate counsel’s conclusions that no error occurred in the submission of only the offense of aggravated robbery to the jury, that the video lineup was not impermissibly suggestive and that the in-court identification was made independent of the video lineup, and that no error occurred when the trial court dismissed 11 potential jurors who had been challenged for cause. The record does not support the submission of a lesser included offense. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 37.09 (Vernon 1981); Reed v. State, 117 S.W.3d 260 (Tex.Cr.App.2003). The record does support the determinations that the video lineup was not impermissibly suggestive and that the in-court identification was based on Jauregui’s observations of appellant during the aggravated robbery. Barley v. State, 906 S.W.2d 27 (Tex.Cr.App.1995); Delk v. State, 855 S.W.2d 700 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). The record further supports the trial court’s rulings on the potential jurors challenged for cause. Mooney v. State, 817 S.W.2d 693 (Tex.Cr.App.1991).
After reviewing the entire record before this court, we find that trial counsel afforded appellant reasonable assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Cr.App.1999); Stafford v. State, supra. We agree that the appeal is without merit.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
April 29, 2004
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J.