not render a lineup impermissibly suggestive: “neither due process nor common sense requires” that the other pictures used in a photographic array exactly match the defendant’s characteristics. Turner v. State, 600 S.W.2d 927, 933 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). Rather," the array must show individuáis who fit a rough description of the suspect. Wilson v. State, 15 S.W.3d 544, 553 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1999, pet. ref'd). A difference in the shirt colors or patterns does not, by itself, render a photographic lineup impermissibly suggestive. See Cienfuegos v. State, 113 S.W.3d 481, 492 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd) (“The mere fact that appellant wore a red shirt did not render the lineup impermissibly suggestive.”); Epps v. State, 811 S.W.2d 237, 244 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991, no pet.) (<HOLDING>), cited in Cienfuegos, 113 S.W.3d at 492;
holding that lineup was admissible even where the defendant stood out because of a facial scar and a filed down tooth holding that a defendant was entitled to counsel at a postindictment lineup holding that where defendant was not subject to custodial interrogation agent did not violate the fifth amendment by contacting defendant for questioning after defendant refused to answer questions without a lawyer present holding photographic lineup not suggestive where defendant was only subject wearing jacket or jacket and red shirt holding that defendant was seized where the officer told defendant that she knew that he was on probation defendant admitted to the officer that he had given her a false name and defendant was asked for consent to search a backpack because a reasonable inference was that defendant was the subject of a continuing investigation and his or her freedom of movement had been significantly restricted by the officers show of authority