COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED December 14, 1995 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and Rule 809.62(1), Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 94-2815-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANTONIO FORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Dane County:
DANIEL R. MOESER, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Gartzke, P.J.,
Sundby and Vergeront, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Antonio Ford appeals from a judgment of conviction on
three counts of armed robbery, contrary to §§ 943.32(1)(b) and (2) and
939.05, Stats. The issues are whether there was sufficient
evidence to support the conviction and whether Ford should have a new trial in
the interest of justice under § 752.35, Stats. We affirm.
Ford argues there was
insufficient evidence to convict him on any of the three counts. The convictions must be affirmed unless the
evidence, viewed most favorably to the state and the conviction, is so
insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law
that no trier of fact, acting reasonably, could have found guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. State v.
Poellinger, 153 Wis.2d 493, 501, 451 N.W.2d 752, 755 (1990). It is for the trier of fact to determine the
weight and credibility of testimony. State
v. Daniels, 117 Wis.2d 9, 17, 343 N.W.2d 411, 415 (Ct. App. 1983).
We conclude the evidence
was sufficient on all three counts.
Count three concerned a robbery at a restaurant. Restaurant employees who were accosted
during the robbery identified Ford as the robber at trial. The other counts concerned robberies at a
service station and a grocery store.
Eyewitness testimony linked a certain vehicle with the grocery store robbery. That vehicle was later stopped, and the
occupant of the vehicle gave statements to police incriminating himself and
Ford in the grocery and service station robberies. This is sufficient evidence upon which to find guilt. It is irrelevant that there was also
evidence the jury might have used to reject the incriminating identification
and statement. The jury was also not
bound to accept Ford's alibi.
In a supplemental pro
se brief, Ford argues that he is entitled to a new trial in the interest of
justice under § 752.35, Stats.,
on the ground that justice miscarried.
To order a new trial on that ground, we must first find a substantial
probability of a different result on retrial.
Vollmer v. Luety, 156 Wis.2d 1, 16, 456 N.W.2d 797, 805
(1990). Ford argues that the evidence
in support of the convictions is inadequate, particularly in view of recent
studies regarding eyewitness identification and the self-serving nature of his
accomplice's statements. We do not
believe there is a substantial probability of a different result on retrial. We therefore decline to grant the requested
retrial.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.