Objection and Ruling Appellant complains within his first issue that in assessing appellant’s punishment, the trial judge specifically considered the “extraneous offense” injected into the sentencing hearing by the prosecutors’ remarks regarding penetration and therefore imposed a sentence based on misinformation because the State had no evidence of penetration. Appellant’s complaint in this regard asserts an error that occurred after the entry of his plea, and as such the Helms/Young rule does not apply. See Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741, 744 (Tex. Crim.App.1994) (per curiam) (noting that Helms rule did not limit appeal of asserted error “occurring at or after entry of a nonnegotiated guilty plea”); see also Lemons v. State, 953 S.W.2d 825, 827 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Appellant contends that the
holding entry of guilty plea waives challenges to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea  emphasis added holding entry of a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional issues holding that a voluntary guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings 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 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