evidence he presented at trial, the record shows that witnesses positively identified him as one of the perpetrators. Blackmon positively identified appellant in a photo line-up and in court as the man who robbed the restaurant in May. Both Christian and Blackmon positively identified appellant in a photo line-up and in court as the man who entered the restaurant just before Briscoe on the night of the June robbery. The identification of appellant by the eye-witnesses is sufficient to support appellant’s convictions. See Davis v. State, 177 S.W.3d 355, 359 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“It is well established that a conviction may be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness.”); Harmon v. State, 167 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>); Aguilar v. State, 468 S.W.2d 75, 77
holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction holding that witnesss testimony was sufficient to support the trial courts finding that defendant committed battery that resulted in bodily injury holding witnesss testimony identifying appellant is sufficient standing alone to support conviction holding that perjured testimony standing alone does not constitute fraud upon the court holding that conviction on appeal is not admissible to impeach witnesss credibility