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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) 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. 2) Concerning the Petitioner’s affirmative defense of indigency, whether the Court of Appeals’ opinion conflicts with the Court’s binding precedent, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas’ binding precedent as well as the precedent of the courts of last resort in several states.