Id. at *1. A complete statement of the facts of Larson's murder case can be found in this Court's opinion in Rule v. State, 890 S.W.2d 158 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 1994, pet. ref'd). Although Larson's pro se brief is not a model of clarity, she complains that “the trial court erred in denying [her] second motion for trace evidence search and forensic DNA testing.”

In that statement, he admits to being present at a meeting where 1) the group spoke about the trouble Pool was causing them and 2) one participant brought up the subject of hiring someone to kill Pool for $10,000. The statement further reveals that appellant traveled to the scene of the murder with Kimberlin, remained abreast of the conduct surrounding the disposition of Pool's body once Pool died, heard one of his compatriots say that if he "`got bust [sic] we were all going down," went to the Home Depot to buy concrete and a trash can for water, and ultimately helped bury Pool's body in cement so it could not be found. While this alone may not establish appellant's guilt for murder it does tend to connect him to the crime. See Rule v. State, 890 S.W.2d 158, 170 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, pet. ref'd) (finding the evidence sufficient to connect Rule to the murder because he was present at the murder scene, helped dispose of the body and murder weapon and attempted to flee). Sufficiency of the Evidence Next, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction.

We affirm the order. See Rule v. State, 890 S.W.2d 158 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, pet. ref'd) (opinion affirming conviction of a codefendant, containing a detailed factual summary of the case). TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.03(a)(B)(2)(A); see Act of April 3, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 2, § 2, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 2, 3-4 (amended 2003) (current version at TEX.