panel which included jurors already selected to serve in another case. Sanders I, 911 S.W.2d at 229. Because the other jurors were removed from the venire before voir dire and appell ex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd) (noting that appellant should be foreclosed from raising points of error on remand not asserted in original brief). We agree. Where an appellant files a brief in the court of appeals and the cause is subsequently remanded to that court by the court of criminal appeals, the only new issues that should be briefed are those issues raised as a result of the opinion by the court of criminal appeals, its application on remand, and any subsequent authorities on the issues that had previously been presented. Cf. Bell v. State, 956 S.W.2d 560, 561 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (<HOLDING>); Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Cotner, 877 S.W.2d
holding that an issue is abandoned when not raised in an appellate brief holding that an issue first argued in a reply brief is not properly before a court of appeals holding a new constitutional challenge not raised in district court was not properly before court of appeals holding that an argument raised only in fact section of opening brief and in reply brief is not properly raised holding that appellant is not entitled to file new brief unless issue is raised by court of criminal appeals