Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision Counsel did not err by failing to object to the in court identifications that the evidence established were not tainted by the out-of-court identification procedure. FACTS:A man wearing a hat and sunglasses entered a Blockbuster video store in September 1999 and told the clerks he was holding them up. The clerks led the man, who was carrying the gun, to the office, where he grew angry when the safe did not contain the previous night’s deposit. Instead, the man took cash from the registers, pulled the phone from the wall and ordered the clerks to kneel facing the wall until he left. Tacuma Shareef was arrested in Houston nearly two years later on a warrant for aggravated robbery in Washington County. Houston police brought Shareef in to participate in a lineup. Shareef was the only one who was handcuffed, but the other participants were told to stand with their hands behind their backs. All were given hats and sunglasses to put on, and were told to say, “This is a robbery,” and turn in a circle. Victims in two other robberies identified Shareef, but the police did not charge him with anything for fear that the victims had observed the handcuffs Shareef was wearing. Police did, however, videotape the lineup, and in the videotape, the participants’ hands were not visible. The Blockbuster clerks, as well as clerks at other video stores that had been robbed, identified Shareef. At his trial for aggravated robbery, the trial court denied Shareef’s motion to suppress the results of the lineup. All of those who viewed the lineup live or on tape testified during the punishment phase of Shareef’s trial, and all identified him as the culprit, saying they had an independent basis � their memory of the robberies � for their in-court identification. Shareef challenges the evidence of identification at the punishment phase. He also claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court first rules that Shareef did not secure an objection to the testimony of the lineup viewers. Having failed to preserve error, the court overrules Shareef’s point of error. Shareef claims his trial attorney was ineffective because he did not object to the in-court identifications by the witnesses to the live lineup in the punishment phase. The court notes that both witnesses said they did not observe the handcuffs Shareef had on, and that they remembered what Shareef looked like from when they were robbed. “Because [Shareef] has not established that he would have prevailed in a motion to suppress the in court identification, he has not established that counsel was ineffective for failing to assert the motions.” OPINION:Keyes, J.; Radack, C.J., Keyes and Alcal, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.