very, very close when [K.R.] was washing the dishes_And his hands were kind of moving up toward her breasts.... ” Unlike O’Neal and Phillips, this case does not present a situation in which the complainant gave a detailed account of one sexual act in addition to testifying that it occurred on a regular basis, thus making clear which act the State would be relying upon for conviction. See O’Neal, 746 S.W.2d at 772-73; Phillips, 130 S.W.3d at 354-55; see also Wilson v. State, 3 S.W.3d 223, 226-27 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, pet. ref'd) (distinguishing O’Neal because evidence pointed to two particular incidents for which the jury could have found appellant guilty). General statements of repeated occurrences may support a conviction. See Rodriguez v. State, 104 S.W.3d 87, 91 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). In this case, because a specific incident was
holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction holding testimony that defendant delivered cocaine maybe 20 or 30 times was sufficient to support conviction holding that evidence was sufficient to support twolevel organizer adjustment where defendant admitted to undercover officer that it was his fault that earlier cocaine transaction had fallen through negotiated meeting through phone calls he initiated and personally delivered cocaine to officer although defendant obtained cocaine he was going to sell from another source holding that circumstantial evidence maybe sufficient to prove venue holding witnesss testimony identifying appellant is sufficient standing alone to support conviction