1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming in
part the judgments of the trial court by not
performing the constitutionally mandated factualsufficiency review of the Petitioner's affirmativedefenses of indigency and impossibility.

2) Concerning the Petitioner's affirmative defense of
indigency, whether the Court of Appeals' opinionconflicts with the Court's binding precedent, theCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas' bindingprecedent as well as the precedent of the courts oflast resort in several states.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming in part the judgments of the trial court by not performing the constitutionally mandated factual sufficiency review of the Petitioner's affirmative defenses of indigency and impossibility