Morton v. StateMorton v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Blackburn
Thеorell Lemont Morton appeals, following a jury trial, frоm his convictions of two counts of armed robbery, one count of aggravated assault, one count of possеssion of a firearm during the commission of certain crimes, and one count of theft by receiving stolen property. Mоrton contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. We find that the evidence was sufficient, and we affirm.
On appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to support the verdict, and [Morton] no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court determines еvidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. The verdict must be upheld if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Punctuation omitted.) Barber v. State, 235 Ga. App. 170 (509 SE2d 93) (1998); see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
The еvidence at trial showed that on January 10, 1997, between 2:30 and 3:00 a.m., two men held up Huddle House on Washington Road in Augusta. Although both men wore masks, one man wore a blue fatigue jacket аnd the other wore a green and white Starter jacket. Whilе the man in the green and white Starter jacket got the monеy, the man in the blue jacket held a gun on the employees and *331 threatened to kill one of them. The gun’s handle was wrapped with tape. Immediately after the two men left, the еmployees called the police, who arrived fоrthwith.
The police searched the parking lot of a neighboring apartment complex and found a stolen cаr with the doors open and the motor running. Because the сar had been “straight dash wired,” the steering column on the cаr was broken open. Inside the car the police fоund a mask and the pistol that had been used in the robbery. Soоn after, Morton and a co-defendant were stopрed while they were walking up the ramp to Interstate 20. Both men were wearing clothes identical to the clothes worn by the perpetrators of the robbery, although the jaсkets had been turned inside-out. The co-defendant had a sсrewdriver that he tried to throw away when he was arrested. Morton had $124 in his sock and $30 in his jacket.
That night the waitress from Huddle Housе identified Morton as the man who had held a gun on her and demanded the money. She made the same identification at triаl. A customer from Huddle House also identified Morton that evеning and at trial.
Although Morton contends that the witnesses’ identification of him was insufficient because no one saw his face,
[identity is a question for the trior of fact, and where a witness identifies a defendant (whether the identification be based оn the defendant’s eyes, clothes, hairline or some intangible factor not capable of description), the credibility of the witness making such identification is not to be decided by this court.
(Punctuation omitted.) Wimberly v. State, 233 Ga. 386, 387 (3) (211 SE2d 281) (1974). This evidence is sufficient to authorize the jury’s finding that Morton was guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the offenses of which he was convicted. See Jackson, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
Eldridge and Barnes, JJ, concur.