Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 7, 2007.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
_______________
NO. 14-06-00908-CR
_______________
JONATHAN JOHN KEEGAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 208th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1044033
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Jonathan John Keegan appeals a conviction for aggravated robbery[1] on the ground that the evidence is factually insufficient to prove that he was the person who robbed the complainant because there were discrepancies in the complainant=s translated statements regarding other aspects of the robbery. We affirm.
In reviewing factual sufficiency, we determine whether, when viewed in a neutral light, the evidence supporting the verdict is either so weak or so outweighed by the great weight and preponderance of the contrary evidence as to render the verdict clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Roberts v. State, 220 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), petition for cert. filed,CU.S.L.W.C(U.S. July 17, 1007)(No. 07-5500).
At trial, the complainant testified that, on October 6, 2005, he was driving to his brother=s apartment, when Pamelia Singh, a lady he had seen before at that apartment complex, asked him for a ride. As they arrived, Singh asked the complainant to help her carry her packages to her second floor apartment (the Aapartment@). When they came to the door, Singh knocked, and appellant opened the door, held a gun to the complainant=s head, took the complainant=s money, and ran away. The complainant initially grabbed Singh but released her when she pulled out a knife.
The complainant=s pre-trial translated statements to police concerning the incident varied as to whether it was appellant or Singh who had come out of the apartment and held a knife to the complainant=s throat during the robbery. In the absence of other corroborating evidence that he was the robber, appellant contends that he was convicted of the crime only because he happened to be the tenant of the apartment.
However, despite the discrepancies in the complainant=s translated statements on other aspects of the robbery, the complainant repeatedly and unhesitatingly identified appellant as the robber, and there is no controverting evidence on this element. Because appellant=s sole issue thus fails to demonstrate that the identification evidence was either so weak or so greatly outweighed by contrary evidence as to render the verdict clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, it is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
/s/ Richard H. Edelman
Justice
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed August 7, 2007.
Panel consists of Justices Yates, Edelman, and Seymore.
Do not publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[1] A jury found appellant guilty and found two enhancement paragraphs true, and the court imposed a sentence of forty-five years confinement.