Kanavius Dorsey v. State
01-14-00685-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 17, 2015Background
- On Nov. 1, 2013, 72‑year‑old Alice Fusilier was struck in the head and had her purse stolen in a convenience‑store parking lot; she reported the attacker and described a maroon/reddish sedan with dark tint and a black‑and‑white plate.
- A few days later police spotted a maroon Chevrolet Malibu with heavily tinted windows and plate BB2N125 in the same bank parking lot; appellant Kanavious Dorsey was driving and the registered owner was Prince Woods.
- Fusilier identified Dorsey from a photo array (classified as a “strong tentative ID”) and later made a confident in‑court identification after having seen photographs prior to trial.
- Dorsey’s girlfriend testified to an alibi that he was with her all day (she had an Instagram post), but no independent witnesses corroborated.
- Jury convicted Dorsey of aggravated robbery of an elderly person; punishment 20 years. On appeal Dorsey challenged (1) legal sufficiency of the identification evidence and (2) trial counsel’s effectiveness for not moving to suppress pretrial and in‑court identifications.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Dorsey’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of identity evidence | Fusilier’s photo‑array and in‑court IDs plus matching vehicle and plate evidence suffice | ID was uncertain/tentative and tainted, so evidence insufficient | Affirmed: any rational trier could find identity beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Pretrial photo array suggestiveness | Array was double‑blind, photos similar; no record of suggestiveness | Pretrial ID was tentative and pretrial contacts with prosecutor risked tainting in‑court ID | Array not shown to be impermissibly suggestive on record; even if suggestive, in‑court ID not necessarily tainted |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress | Record is silent on trial counsel’s strategy; appellant didn’t seek new trial or develop the record | Counsel unreasonably failed to move to suppress identifications | Affirmed: appellant failed to overcome presumption of reasonable strategy and did not show motion would have been granted or changed outcome |
| Admissibility of in‑court ID after possible suggestive procedure | Factors (opportunity to view, attention, certainty, time lapse) support admissibility | Prior suggestive procedures undermined in‑court certainty | Court concluded in‑court ID admissible on facts; no clear showing of irreparable misidentification |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard of review for legal sufficiency)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective‑assistance two‑prong test)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (identification admissibility and factors for taint analysis)
- Jackson v. State, 657 S.W.2d 123 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (pretrial ID issues go to weight not necessarily admissibility)