It may do so by either direct or circumstantial evidence, coupled with all reasonable inferences from that evidence. Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274, 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Stubblefield v. State, No. 01-16-00644-CR, 2017 WL 2645040, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 20, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). In determining whether the State presented sufficient evidence to carry this burden, we must consider "the combined and cumulative force" of all the identity evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's finding.
Here, the jury was able to compare appellant and the actual clothing items that were recovered from the Economy Lodge hotel room with the person and the clothing items seen in the videotape recordings and photographs that were admitted into evidence. See Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919, 925 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); see, e.g., Stubblefield v. State, No. 01-16-00644-CR, 2017 WL 2645040, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 20, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (fact finder could compare man seen in videotape recordings and photographs to defendant in courtroom); Perales v. State, No. 02-13-00458-CR, 2014 WL 3778275, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 31, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (evidence sufficient to identify defendant as burglar where videotape recording displayed several characteristics of defendant and fact finder able to compare man in footage with defendant in courtroom); Conyers v. State, 864 S.W.2d 739, 741 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd) (jury could compare photographs admitted into evidence with appearance of defendant). Further, although appellant asserts that "the only evidence linking [him] to the offense is circumstantial," circumstantial evidence, as previously noted, is just as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt.