In Najar v. State, 74 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. App.-Waco 2002, no pet.), Warden Botkin did not give testimony in the form of an opinion, lay or expert. See id. at 86 (citing TEX. R. EVID. 701, 702). She was never asked to express an opinion. Id. Thus, she was a fact witness whose testimony was challenged solely on the basis of its relevancy. Id. Najar stated that Schielack v. State Is distinguishable from the present case because Botkin testified that inmates similarly-situated to Najar-same offense, no history of violence or aggression, no behavioral problems while incarcerated-would be placed into "minimum custody" and be immediately eligible for all appropriate prison programs; prison overcrowding is not an obstacle to expeditious placement into programs. Therefore, the warden's testimony was not merely speculative as to Najar. Furthermore, Schielack did not hold that evidence about prison conditions is per se irrelevant; Schielack stands only for the principle that its relevancy depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Id. at 87.