In Brown v. State, 212 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.--Houston 1st Dist. 2006, pet. ref'd), the court noted irregularities in the complainant's identification of the appellant in a photo line-up because the complainant only identified the appellant after he saw his wife's indication that the appellant was one of the men who had robbed them, and the other evidence linking appellant to the crime was largely circumstantial. Id. However, the Court upheld the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence against the appellant in Brown on the basis of the second complainant's identification of the appellant and the circumstantial evidence against him. Id.