at 661. The record reflects that the State is indeed correct, and appellant, on more than one occasion during the punishment phase of his trial, admitted his guilt. On direct examination at the punishment phase of his trial, appellant expressed his remorse about the four aggravated robberies. He also stated he was sorry for the crimes. On cross-examination, the State more fully developed appellant’s participation in the aggravated robberies. The State specifically asked appellant if he was guilty of each of the four aggravated robberies that the jury had found him guilty of. He answered “yes.” He also answered “yes” each time the State asked him if he ts of error number five, six, and seven, concerning identification testimony, are specifically waivable. Richardson, 458 S.W.2d at 666 (<HOLDING>). Because the evidentiary errors raised in
holding defendant waived right to contest lawfulness of search on appeal after he had admitted guilt at punishment phase of trial holding defendant waived right to challenge incourt identification when he admitted guilt at punishment phase of trial holding that trial court erred when it admitted outofcourt identification of defendant when the witness who made the identification was never asked about defendants identity at trial holding that a showing of actual prejudice was required where the defendant claimed that counsel was ineffective for conceding guilt at the guilt phase of a capital trial holding when the defendant timely objected to an incourt identification by an eyewitness the trial judge should have directed the government to provide an outofcourt lineup or other protective procedure to avoid an impermissibly suggestive incourt identification