had driven as far as he could, but his car would no longer run. Id. The police, accompanied by Rawls, followed a trail of water from what appeared to be a leaking radiator until they ted Appellant also argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to show that he operated a vehicle while intoxicated. A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if the person is intoxicated while driving or operating a motor vehicle in a public place. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a). To support a finding that the defendant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle, there must be a temporal link between the defendant’s intoxication and his driving. Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460, 462 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). Such a finding can be supported by direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. (<HOLDING>). “Being intoxicated at the scene of a traffic
holding that conviction can be supported solely by circumstantial evidence holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent recognizing that circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to demonstrate a defendants guilt holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction holding that intent and knowledge can be proved by circumstantial evidence