Whether the applicant's filing met the requirements for revision under Art. 410 and 412 CCP.
The request was construed as a revision application but was inadmissible because it repeated earlier grounds and introduced no new evidence.
Revision requires unknown facts or evidence capable of affecting the outcome. The application relied essentially on the same arguments as the earlier revision request of 20 October 2011 and did not present any new means of proof; therefore the appellate court could not enter into the matter.