commit the offense and that evidence of motive and opportunity alone are, as a matter of law, insufficient to prove identity. See Merritt, 368 S.W.3d at 526. Again, we disagree. The same evidence that circumstantially established the corpus delicti of the offense also circumstantially established Carrizales’s identity. See Earls, 707 S.W.2d at 85. We note that Carrizales appears to concede that the evidence establishes that he had the motive and opportunity to commit the offense; he was unhappy with the speed at which the Go-mezes were driving on the road outside his home (motive), and he lived near the Go-mezes (opportunity). The evidence of motive and opportunity, while not sufficient alone, are nonetheless circumstances linking Carrizales to the crime. See Merritt, 368 S.W.3d at 526 (<HOLDING>); see also Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341, 361
holding that allegations of motive and opportunity were not enough to create a strong inference of scienter holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined holding that evidence of prior criminal misconduct is admissible under rule 404b to prove motive opportunity intent preparation plan knowledge identity or absence of mistake or accident holding that even though motive and opportunity are not sufficient to prove identity they are circumstances indicative of guilt holding that the probative value of evidence that defendant had recently been released from prison offered to show identity opportunity and motive outweighed its prejudicial effect in bank robbery prosecution