Appellant claims the evidence is insufficient, does not make a claim that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient. Is there case law that says only one (legal or factual) insufficiency is addressed?

I'm not aware of one. Does he cite to the review for either one? And what relief is he asking for? That's a way I've limited it in the past. If he's only asking for an acquittal, he's only asking for legal sufficiency.

It sounds like the issue of factual sufficiency is improperly briefed.

In McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997), the appellant began his discussion of points one through four by stating, "In reviewing for factual sufficiency the court considers whether the judgment is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust." Then, in his third point of error, the appellant asserted that the evidence was factually insufficient to support his conviction. However, although the appellant in McDuff generally discussed the evidence for points one through four in his brief, he did not propose a standard of reviewing factual sufficiency. Furthermore, he did not specifically argue how the evidence was insufficient under any standard of reviewing factual sufficiency. He concluded by asserting that his conviction was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence and that his conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered. Addressing the appellant's claim of factual insufficiency in McDuff, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that it was insufficiently briefed and presented nothing for review. Id. at 613; See Also Dorsey v. State, 2002 Tex.App.LEXIS 7461 at 7467 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd).

I hope this helps.