Appellant appears to argue in point sixteen that because the State was able to certify appellant to stand trial as an adult not once, but twice, for solicitation of capital murder and for capital murder, she was twice placed in jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause. She apparently argues that the State was permitted but one bite at the proverbial apple in the initial certification proceeding for solicitation of capital murder, and ergo, once the juvenile court transferred jurisdiction to the district court, the State was prohibited from going back to juvenile court a second time to seek certification on the capital murder charge that it could have sought certification on in the first proceeding. In other words, the conduct of appellant was substantially the same in both charges and the State, to its own detriment, simply did not pursue the capital murder charge. Thus it should have been prohibited from a second certification proceeding on the capital murder charge. Appellant cites no authority for her proposition, nor could we find any.
Nothing is presented for review.
Points of error sixteen and seventeen are overruled. In point nineteen, appellant again fails to separate her state constitutional claim by providing substantive argument as to why the state constitution should be interpreted differently from the federal constitution. Thus, nothing is presented for review by point of error nineteen. Revisitation of Allen is a matter left properly to the court of criminal appeals and not this court. However, appellant cites neither authority nor substantive argument as to why this contention has merit.