punishment would be assessed if guilt was adjudicated. Therefore, Applicant’s waiver was not knowing and intelligent and does not bar him from appealing from the punishment phase of trial. Relief is granted, and the trial court is instructed to certify Applicant’s right to appeal issues related to his sentence. KELLER, P.J., and WOMACK, J„ concurred. 1 . While it seems odd that the trial court’s certification of defendant’s right to appeal was signed and dated before Applicant signed and dated the waiver of hi .-Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.) (reasoning that the waiver was not knowing and intelligent because the appellant could not know the consequences of the waiver at the time it was executed); Arnone v. State, No. 05-03-01165-CR, 2004 WL 147612, at *1 (Tex.App.-Dallas Jan. 28, 2004) (<HOLDING>); Andrews v. State, Nos. 2-02-353-CR,
holding an allocution error would not be reversed on appeal because the appellant did not furnish any information about what he would have allocuted to that might have mitigated his sentence holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his postadjudication sentence because he did not object at trial or present his motion for new trial holding that because the appellant could not have known what his sentence would be at the time he entered his plea monreal and blanco are not controlling holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his sentence because he did not object at trial holding that a defendant must show reasonable probability that but for the error he would not have entered the plea