this record. See Ex parte Moussazadeh, 64 S.W.3d 404, 412 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (“We hold that any finding that parole eligibility formed an essential part of a plea agreement must be founded upon the express terms of the written plea agreement itself, the formal record at the plea hearing, or the written or testimonial evidence submitted by both the prosecution and applicant in a habeas proceeding.”). We cannot conclude on this record that appellant’s plea was the result of an agreed punishment recommendation by the State as contemplated by rule 25.2(b)(3). Thus, we hold that rule 25.2(b)(3) does not apply to appellant’s appeal, and his general notice of appeal is sufficient to invoke our jurisdiction. See Guerrero v. State, 64 S.W.3d 436,440 (Tex. App.-Waco 2001, no pet.) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). RELEVANT FACTS Appellant’s complaints center
recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea holding that guilty plea is voluntary and knowing only if defendant understands the range of allowable punishment that will result from his plea holding that the defendants guilty plea was entered into knowingly voluntarily and intelligently holding that a defendants guilty plea was unconditional where the guilty plea was not in writing and the government did not consent to it being conditional holding that rule 252b3 did not apply to an appeal from a guilty plea entered without the benefit of an agreed punishment recommendation