The state Supreme Court has upheld a jury's conviction of Dashawn J. Revels in the 2009 shooting death of Bryan Davila in New London, rejecting the argument that his identification as the killer by a key witness was unconstitutional.

Revels, who is 25, is serving a 55-year prison sentence for shooting Davila, 20, near the intersection of State Pier Road and Crystal Avenue.

In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court rejected Revels' contention that the so-called "show up" identification of him as a suspect on the night of the shooting was unnecessarily suggestive. After a woman provided police with a description of the shooter's clothing, they apprehended Revels across town and brought her to that location to positively identify Revels as he stood in the middle of a street, handcuffed and surrounded by police officers.

"The police had reason to believe that an armed and dangerous person, who had just shot and killed a man less than one hour before they detained the defendant, was at large in the community," the court wrote, in part, in an advance release opinion to be officially published on Tuesday.

New London Public Defender Bruce A. Sturman and attorney James B. Streeto from the chief public defender's office say they won't give up on Revels.

"It's really heartwrenching, because from our perspective, what it means is that they're continuing to hold an innocent man in prison," said Streeto during a phone interview Friday. "The fight isn't over. There are other avenues that Dashawn can pursue, and we are aggressively looking into that."

The Innocence Project and Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association had filed briefs in support of Revels' appeal.

At his 2011 trial in New London Superior Court, the defense had pinned the shooting on two other men who were with Revels that night. According to testimony at the trial and court documents, the state's case hinged on a witness who identified Revels as the shooter from her apartment in the Crystal Avenue high-rise, which was 265 feet away. Based on her description of the shooter's clothing, they detained Revels and another man in the Home Street area. Brought to the scene by police Officer Justin Clachrie, the woman exclaimed, "That's him!" when she saw Revels, who was wearing a camouflage jacket, red cap and dark pants, standing with the police. She hesitantly identified the second suspect as being present at the scene, but he was not charged.

The defense had attempted to suppress the eyewitness' testimony, but Judge Stuart M. Schimelman allowed the information. Also at the trial, the witness mistakenly identified a legal intern who sat with Revels and his attorneys at the defense table as the shooter. She corrected herself and later identified Revels as the shooter.

Senior Assistant State's Attorney Mitchell S. Brody, who argued the appeal for the state, could not be reached for comment Friday. Senior Assistant State's Attorney David J. Smith, who had tried the case in New London and assisted in the appeal, said the court focused in on the eyewitness' identification of Revels based on his clothing and the time frame of his being at the shooting scene.

By doing the "show up" identification, police were able to get the shooter off the street and to get the other suspect out of custody quickly, Smith said.

Smith said that Revels admitted to police that he had been involved in the shooting during a police interrogation that was recorded and played for the jury. The defense contends that Revels was referring to the group of people he was with that night and said "we" were involved in the shooting.

Revels' next avenue of appeal is likely to be a habeas corpus appeal in which he could challenge the legality of his confinement based on ineffective assistance of counsel, improper sentence calculation or a claim of actual innocence.

k.florin@theday.com

Twitter: @KFLORIN