argues that Appellant was not indigent. This appeal was abated pending a hearing in the trial court on Appellant’s indigency. This court has since been furnished a complete record of the evidentiary hearing, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, and will now consider the cross-point as if no erroneous action had occurred. See TEX. R.APP.P. 81(a). At the evidentiary hearing the parties stipulated that Appellant had filed an affidavit of indigency, that the facts recited therein were and remain true, and that he was indigent at the time of the appeal. Based on these stipulations and the record as a whole, the court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered that he be provided a statement of facts without cost. See Rosales v. State, 748 S.W.2d 451, 455 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). The cross-point is overruled and the judgment
holding that a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court holding that a sentencing determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the district court holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion holding that an indigency finding will not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion