of service, which would have been prima facie evidence of proper service. See Tex.R. Crv. P. 21a. Upon careful examination of the two petitions, we note that the amended petition reflects that JenCra was being served with citation under the authority of section 17.044 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a Texas long-arm statute. See Tex. Crv. PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 17.044 (Vernon 1997). In its original petition, Drewery alleged that JenCra was being served with citation through its registered agent, Craig Harris. No other changes were made. The amendment did not assert new claims or request a more onerous judgment against Fidelity or Jen-Cra. See Weaver, 570 S.W.2d at 370; Palomin v. Zarsky Lumber Co., 26 S.W.3d 690, 693-94 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we conclude that failure to serve
holding that a  2255 petition seeking only reinstatement of the right to a direct appeal does not render any later petition a second or successive petition under the aedpa holding that because the petitioner had already filed a rule 371 petition he was barred from submitting a subsequent petition under that rule and his petition was subject to dismissal on that basis regardless of the label he placed on it holding that after original petition had been properly served on defendant failure to serve amended petition was not error since it contained only insignificant changes holding that the filing of an amended petition in the same cause in which a final judgment had already been entered was like an original petition sufficient to invoke the trial courts jurisdiction holding that even where postconviction petitioner reserved the option to file an amended petition in his opening petition simply filing an amended petition is insufficient to request leave to file an amended petition a motion for leave to file an amended petition was required before it was necessary for the district judge to consider the amended petition