had been suppressed. Stated differently, the judgments would not have been supported without the evidence. However, courts have held that when there is no direct nexus between the alleged error and the judgment, defendants waive their right to appeal the alleged error by entering a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. See Ramirez v. State, 89 S.W.3d 222, 232 (TexApp.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (concluding that Ramirez waived right to complain about State’s failure to produce evidence that investigators had found no medical proof that Ramirez had sexually penetrated victim because lack of evidence of penetration had no nexus to guilt or innocence of offense charged, which was aggravated sexual assault by contact); Fountain v. State, 79 S.W.3d 72, 74 (TexApp.-Beaumont 2002, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also Guidry, 177 S.W.3d at 93-94 (holding
holding that it is clear that hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing on a motion to suppress holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment holding that the defendant waived the right to challenge a suppression ruling on appeal holding that because judgment of youngs guilt was not rendered independently of trial courts ruling on motion to suppress evidence of offense and judgment would not be supported without that evidence error not waived by plea of guilty holding that appellant waived right to appeal ruling on motion to suppress evidence under young court noted that it was unclear from record what evidence fountain wanted suppressed but ultimately concluded that judgment was rendered on the independent testimony of deputy paske which was admissible