With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to demonstrate incompetency, a defendant could easily avoid prosecution through immature behavior. Id. The State directs this Court to Clark v. State, 47 S.W.3d 211 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2001, no pet.). We find Clark analogous to the instant case. In Clark, the trial court held a competency hearing in July of 1999, but the appellant argued that the court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a second competency hearing in November of 1999. Clark, 47 S.W.3d at 215-16. The court of appeals noted that, while the appellant’s behavior at the November 1999 pretrial hearing was “bizarre,” no new evidence was presented indicating a change in the appellant’s mental condition from the previous finding. Id. at 218, citing Miles v. State, 688 S.W.2d 219, 224 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1985, pet. refd) (<HOLDING>); O’Neil v. State, 642 S.W.2d 259, 262

A: holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted
B: holding defendant not entitled toa hearing on his motion for a new trial where he failed to prove that his new evidence  was in fact newly discovered and that its recent discovery was in no way attributable to a previous lack of diligence
C: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence where the evidence would serve only to impeach  testimony
D: holding that appellant must present some evidence of a subsequent change in competency or some new evidence in a manner analogous to newly discovered evidence in a motion for new trial to complain of a denial of a second competency hearing
D.