context: P. 25.2(b)(3). Moreover, it is the inclusion of these statements which vests us with jurisdiction over the appeal. Should they be omitted, we are restricted to considering only those points averring jurisdictional defects or impugning the voluntariness of the initial plea.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that the rule also applies to those attempting to perfect an appeal after their community supervision is revoked and they are adjudicated guilty
citation_a.sentence: Flowers v. State, 935 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (involving the predecessor to the current rule of appellate procedure); see Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (holding that the rule also applies to those attempting to perfect an appeal after their community supervision is revoked and they are adjudicated guilty).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 935 S.W.2d 131, 134
citation_b.parenthetical: involving the predecessor to the current rule of appellate procedure
citation_b.sentence: Flowers v. State, 935 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (involving the predecessor to the current rule of appellate procedure); see Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (holding that the rule also applies to those attempting to perfect an appeal after their community supervision is revoked and they are adjudicated guilty).