Appellant contends that an in-court identification of appellant requires a reversal of his conviction because (1) he was not furnished counsel at a pretrial lineup and (2) the lineup was impermissibly suggestive. We affirm.
2. We cannot accept appellant's contention that the lineup was suggestive. However, even assuming the lineup was suggestive, we find no substantial likelihood of misidentification under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, there was no substantial likelihood of misidentification. The trial court did not err in permitting the in-court identification.