new trial for an abuse of discretion. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex.Crim.App.2009). A trial court abuses its discretion when the ruling “was so clearly wrong as to lie outside that zone within which reasonable persons might disagree.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “Our review ... is limited to the trial [court]’s determination of whether the defendant has raised grounds that are both undeterminable from the record and reasonable, meaning they could entitle the defendant to relief.” Id. Even if the defendant meets the requirements for obtaining a hearing, however, the trial court is not required to allow live testimony at the hearing. Holden v. State, 201 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tex.Crim.App.2006). Instead, that decision lies within the discretion of the trial court. See id. (<HOLDING>). B. Analysis Appellant’s complaint on appeal
holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to disqualify an attorney based on a matter not raised by the opposing party until only weeks prior to trial holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in reconsidering a prior interlocutory ruling