The evidence against appellant was mostly circumstantial. The jury is permitted to draw any reasonable inference from circumstantial evidence to the same extent it can from direct evidence. It is only when circumstantial evidence leaves the jury solely to speculation and conjecture that it is insufficient as a matter of law . . . . Appellant correctly notes that the State produced no physical evidence to link him to the robbery, that no witness positively identified him as the robber, and that the State introduced no evidence as to his height and weight. The evidence submitted in this case was sufficient to allow the jury to infer, without resort to speculation and conjecture, that appellant was the person who committed the robbery.
Common sense allows no other reasonable explanation.
Hart and Jennings, JJ., agree.