With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was on fire. Edwards further testified that appellant fled the scene in his vehicle, then abandoned the vehicle and fled on foot. Although flight alone will not support a guilty verdict, it is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. Harris v. State, 645 S.W.2d 447, 458 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). Appellant presented no evidence to controvert the State’s evidence. In support of his factual-sufficiency argument, appellant cites testimony that, at some point in time, appellant’s vehicle was reported stolen. However, the testimony appellant cites was given at a motion-to-suppress hearing, and no such evidence was admitted at trial. Accordingly, we cannot consider this evidence in our factual sufficiency review. See Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 406 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). Under the applicable legal standard, we

A: holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence
B: holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial
C: holding that sufficiency of the evidence review should be independent of the jurys determination that evidence on another count was insufficient
D: holding that a habeas court reviewing the sufficiency of evidence underlying a criminal conviction must determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt  emphasis added
B.