Appeal from the 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1459114
consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and
Thompson Frost Chief Justice
Yancy Kelley challenges his conviction for robbery, asserting
(1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object
to evidence, and (2) trial-court error in admitting evidence
of the complainant's pretrial identification of
appellant. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
complainant, Junie Treminio, was walking to a bus stop when
she encountered a man who grabbed her necklace and attempted
to take her purse. A struggle ensued, and the assailant threw
the complainant to the ground. When the complainant's
purse flew off of her arm, the assailant took the
complainant's wallet and fled.
neighborhood resident heard the complainant screaming and ran
out of his home in time to see a man running away from the
bus stop. When the resident saw the man get into a blue car,
he wrote down the license plate number. The complainant told
911 operators that her attacker was a black male wearing a
black t-shirt and gray shorts. She stated that a witness saw
the attacker leave the scene in a blue Nissan Altima with
license plate FJP8227.
week later, Eric Garza, a police officer on patrol, was
randomly running license plates of vehicles to see whether
any of the plates returned "hits" in the police
computer system. Officer Garza entered the plate of a blue
Nissan Altima with license-plate number FJP8227. Officer
Garza then stopped the car and arrested appellant, who was
seated on the passenger side.
John Bedingfield interviewed appellant at the police station.
In the videotaped interview, appellant denied responsibility
for the robbery. Appellant then invoked his right to counsel.
Bedingfield created a photo spread that contained a photo of
appellant. He showed the photo spread to the complainant, and
she identified appellant as the man who attacked her.
was charged with robbery and an enhancement based on a prior
felony conviction for burglary of a habitation. A jury found
appellant guilty as charged and found the alleged enhancement
to be true. The trial court assessed punishment at ten
years' confinement. Appellant now challenges his
conviction, raising two issues.
Issues and Analysis
Was trial counsel ineffective in failing to object to
appellant's videotaped statement?
first issue, appellant asserts that trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance because trial counsel did not object
at trial to the State playing appellant's videotaped
statement to Detective Bedingfield. Appellant contends that
the statement was inadmissible because it was a custodial
statement in ...