Ex parte Denton, 399 S.W.3d 540, 544-45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Langs v. State, 183 S.W.3d 680, 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Gonzalez v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)). A double jeopardy claim is “apparent on the face of the trial record” if “resolution of the claim does not require further proceedings for the purpose of introducing additional evidence in support” of the double jeopardy claim. Id. (citing Ex parte Knipp, 236 S.W.3d 214, 216, n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Gonzalez, 8 S.W.3d at 643). The State contends that, because there is no reporter’s record of the plea hearing, we must presume that evidence was presented at the hearing that supported the judgment. See Williams v. State, 950 S.W.2d 383, 385 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. refd) (<HOLDING>). It contends that “[f]or all we know, evidence
holding that a criminal defendant must provide a fair and just reason to support withdrawal of his guilty plea even when that plea has not yet been accepted by the district court holding that in order to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment based on a plea of guilty or no contest a defendant must bring forward a full statement of facts including a transcription of the plea proceedings holding that right to challenge factual basis is waived by guilty plea holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea