Espinosa v. State

Phipps, Judge.

A jury found Omar Espinosa and his co-defendant Eric Anderson guilty of armed robbery of the clerk of a convenience store. On appeal, Espinosa contends that the evidence was insufficient, that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel, and that he was denied due process. Because he has demonstrated no merit in these contentions, we affirm.

1. Espinosa challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. We do not…