This Court has also repeatedly considered and rejected the arguments presented by Thornton. See, e.g., Wilkins v. State, No. 10-16-00233-CR, 2018 WL 1097367, at *3 (Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 28, 2018, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Thomas v. State, No. 10-17-00049-CR, 2017 WL 5662290, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 22, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Burns v. State, No. 10-16-00357-CR, 2017 WL 2819116, at *3 (Tex. App.—Waco Jun. 28, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); and Garcia v. State, No. 10-16-00045-CR, 2017 WL 124163, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 11, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication)). We are therefore not persuaded to consider Thornton's factual-sufficiency argument in this proceeding.

This Court has repeatedly considered and rejected the arguments presented by Hendrix. See, e.g., Wilkins v. State, No. 10-16-00233-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 1575, at **7-8 (Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 28, 2018, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Thomas v. State, No. 10-17-00049-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 10981, at **5-6 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 22, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Burns v. State, No. 10-16-00357-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5946, at *8 (Tex. App.—Waco June 28, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Garcia v. State, No. 10-16-00045-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 195, at *6 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 11, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication)). Based on the foregoing and the fact that, as an intermediate appellate court, we are required to follow binding precedent in cases decided by the Court of Criminal Appeals, we are not persuaded to consider Hendrix's factual-sufficiency argument in this proceeding.

This Court has repeatedly previously considered and rejected the arguments presented by Wilkins. See Thomas v. State, No. 10-17-00049-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 10981 at *5-6 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 22, 2017, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Burns v. State, No. 10-16-00357-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5946 at *8 (Tex. App.—Waco June 28, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Garcia v. State, No. 10-16-00045-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 195 at *6 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 11, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We are not persuaded to consider this argument in this proceeding.

We note that the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that factual sufficiency no longer applies in criminal cases. See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 902, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)) (concluding that there is "no meaningful distinction between the Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard and the . . . factual-sufficiency standard, and these two standards have become indistinguishable" and holding that the "Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard is the only standard that a reviewing court should apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt"); Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); see also Burns v. State, No. 10-16-00357-CR, 2017 WL 2819116, at *3 (Tex. App.—Waco June 28, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Sanders, 2015 WL 2170229, at *1. We review the sufficiency of the evidence, whether denominated as a legal or a factual sufficiency claim, under the standard of review set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).