In Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131, 133-34 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) the Court of Criminal Appeals considered the issue of reasonable diligence. Madding's original application, alleging his trial counsel was ineffective, was denied. Id. He filed a subsequent application, alleging his rights under the double jeopardy clause were violated because the judgment ordered his sentence to be served consecutive to another sentence when the trial judge had pronounced in open court that the sentences would be served concurrently. Id. at 132. The court noted there was no evidence Madding ever received a copy of the judgment, the prison records did not reflect the cumulation order, Madding asserted in his first application that his trial records were unavailable to him, and Madding complained of this fact several times, as reflected by letters in his file. Id. at 133 n.4. The court held Madding had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the factual basis for his claim was unavailable when he filed his original application. Id. at 133.