Dominguez, Daniel Vasquez

<\^ s^c DECEIVED IN Y* .^ WV tWsJL (,ftv wv v\v v• ^lWr\\\*^W$£^WEALS x * SEP 212015 ^r\&&sjiA \\w^sj<X\^V ^S-vVW«n$lt<* ^o^\^.s ^ V^^\jv>t^sln^s^^c .^>^CS VvV.^^ ^o^O^> vW^vxj^O* ^JD>oC^ \T^kJO.As ^ Cxr^v*\ S^cVVo ^OvxT CkSS\SW\0- \s (vX<Lv^W Gob fcx^O^^V^^*^ V^oX m testing. See Reger v. State,

222 S.W.3d 510, 512-13

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref d); Hooks v. State,

203 S.W.3d 861, 866

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref d). Accordingly, we do not entertain Appellant's challenges to his original conviction. For the foregoing reasons, we overrule Appellant's three issues challenging the…