did he assess him to be incompetent. Given this evidence, we are unable to say that appellant was incompetent or that his head injuries or “inadequate mental capabilities” prevented him from entering a voluntary plea. Accordingly, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction that portion of the appeal involving the alleged denial of a punishment hearing and affirm the judgment entered below. 1 . Of late, question has arisen about whether Flowers remains controlling. Though Flowers dealt with the recitals required in a notice of appeal under the pre-1997 Rules of Appellate Procedure, the old Rule 40(b)(1) and the current Rule 25.2(b)(3) are identical. Being identical, there is no reason to interpret them differently. See Boyd v. State, 971 S.W.2d 603, 605-06 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1998, no pet. h.) (<HOLDING>). The suggestions of Judges Baird and
holding evidence sufficient to support aggravating factor of old age holding that incorporation of identical wording in a new rule is tantamount to approving prior judicial interpretations of the old holding a circuit courts authority to grant a new trial is so necessary to the judicial process and so essential to fair trials that its existence is a necessary incident to the exercise of judicial power by the circuit court holding that trial judge is legally correct in dismissing declaratory action when two actions are substantially the same issues were identical and the identical action was still pending holding that amendment of condemnors original complaint to substitute a new and different easement route was tantamount to abandonment of the original proceeding