Texas Rules of Evidence, Rule 404(b) provides, in pertinent part, that: "evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake of accident . . . ." TEX. R. EVID. 404(b). To be admissible, the proponent of such evidence must persuade the trial court that the extraneous evidence is being offered for some purpose other than character conformity. See Rankin v. State, 974 S.W.2d 707, 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Although extraneous evidence is not permitted solely to show character conformity, it may be admissible where such evidence makes a "fact of consequence" in the case more or less likely. See Rankin, 974 S.W.2d at 710. A fact of consequence includes either an elemental fact or an evidentiary fact from which an elemental fact may be inferred. Id. An evidentiary fact that stands unconnected to an elemental fact is not a fact of consequence. Id. We review a complaint about the admission of extraneous offense evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, and uphold the lower court's decision to admit where the decision falls "within the reasonable zone of disagreement." See id. at 718.