before the offense, appellant was present at the Waffle House just seconds before Briscoe entered with a gun, appellant’s placing a to-go order was a ruse because appellant did not pick up the order when he left the restaurant immediately before the offense, and the close relationship between appellant and Bris-coe, a juror could have reasonably found that appellant encouraged, aided, or attempted to aid Briscoe by, for instance, informing him via cell phone of the conditions inside the restaurant, creating a distraction just prior to the robbery, and serving as a lookout while Briscoe pointed the gun at Christian and emptied the cash register. There is evidence in the record indicating that appellant was acting with Briscoe under a common scheme. See Wygal, 555 S.W.2d at 469 (<HOLDING>); see also Miller, 83 S.W.3d at 314. Viewing
holding that an agreement may be inferred entirely from circumstantial evidence holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence holding that circumstantial evidence may suffice to show that one is a party to an offense