informant’s testimony. For the same reasons stated in the third issue, we do not find the corroborating evidence so unconvincing that it renders the State’s overall case clearly and significantly less persuasive. See id. We overrule Appellant’s second issue. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 . See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.126(a)(3), .102(3)(D), .115(a), (0 (Vernon 2010). 2 . Appellant admitted that his voice was on the recording, but he denied that the recording was from inside the Burger King. Instead, he claimed it was a recording of a telephone conversation. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, we must conclude that the recording took place inside the Burger King. See Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564, 567 (Tex.Crim.App.2008)
holding that the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and all doubts are resolved against the moving party holding that we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party holding that in ruling on a summaryjudgment motion record evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to nonmovant holding that when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government holding record is viewed in light most favorable to verdict