anything but voluntary. The evidence is therefore legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s implicit rejection of Gokey’s involuntary act or conduct defense. Enhancement Allegations In his final two points of error, Gokey asserts the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court’s finding of true to the enhancement allegations because there is a material variance between the allegations and the proof. The State agrees the enhancement allegations recite a conviction in Chesterfield County, Virginia and the proof establishes a conviction in the Circuit Court in the City of Colonial Heights, Virginia. We must therefore decide whether variance between what was alleged and what was proved is material. See Human v. State, 749 S.W.2d 832, 836 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (<HOLDING>). Prior convictions alleged for enhancement are
holding variance between enhancement allegation and proof renders evidence legally insufficient only if variance is material holding evidence legally insufficient holding variance in style of case pled for enhancement not material where defendant not surprised or misled to his prejudice holding that multiple conspiracies instruction is required where there is possibility of prejudicial variance between indictment and trial proof and noting that such an instruction is designed precisely to cure the problem of kotteakos spillover  and would not cure other prejudicial variance problems recognizing that evidence may be legally insufficient where there is variance between indictment allegations and proof