Seth Roberts v. State, 07-16-00090-CR

On Sept. 2, 2014, a masked man entered a Subway, used a handgun to demand money, and left; the robbery was captured on store and neighboring Domino’s video.
Victim Williams observed the robber (wearing sunglasses, gloves, a Rangers cap) and later identified appellant after seeing his photo in a newspaper.
Appellant’s roommate (Lara) and Lara’s mother implicated appellant; Lara identified the robber by comparing the assailant’s walk to appellant’s.
Police arrested appellant driving a green SUV like the vehicle in the Domino’s video; a lock box in the vehicle labeled with appellant’s name contained two handguns (one matching the robbery weapon) and gloves matching those worn by the robber.
Jury convicted appellant of aggravated robbery; appellant appealed claiming (1) insufficient evidence of identity and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call an eyewitness-identification expert and for not requesting a jury instruction on eyewitness reliability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of identification evidence	Williams’ and Lara’s IDs are unreliable (newspaper ID; gait ID)	Identification supported by video, vehicle match, guns/gloves found, cap, facial hair, specific knowledge of amount taken, gun handling	Conviction affirmed — evidence sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Ineffective assistance for not calling expert on eyewitness reliability	Counsel was deficient for failing to present expert testimony on unreliability and for not requesting a jury instruction	Counsel’s choices not shown to be deficient; no record expert was available or would help; no obligation to request a non‑existent Texas jury instruction; strategy presumed reasonable	Claim denied — appellant failed to show deficient performance or prejudice

Marshall v. State, 479 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson/Brooks sufficiency framework)
Thomas v. State, 444 S.W.3d 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (jury as sole judge of witness credibility)
Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (two‑part Strickland analysis for ineffectiveness)
King v. State, 649 S.W.2d 42 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (need to show expert availability and benefit to prove prejudice from failure to call)
Garza v. State, 298 S.W.3d 837 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009) (same principle on expert absence)
Mata v. State, 226 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (presumption counsel acted pursuant to trial strategy)
Ex parte Niswanger, 335 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (record must show counsel’s reasons to rebut strategy presumption)
Ex parte Saenz, 491 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (court’s role in scrutinizing strategy claims)
Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (failure to act is not deficient absent outrageous conduct)
Edmond v. State, 116 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (counsel need not press frivolous or baseless requests)