Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): The point is that, once jurisdiction is lost, the court of appeals lacks the power to invoke any rule to thereafter obtain jurisdiction. Even a claimed deprivation of constitutional rights cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court where none exists, anymore than parties can by agreement confer jurisdiction upon a court. So any amendments made pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) cannot be jurisdictional amendments. Id. at 413-14 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). According to Riewe, the only amendments permitted under Rule 25.2(d) are wcm-jurisdictional amendments. Id. The amendments appellant must make to his notice of appeal to invoke our jurisdiction over his complaint about punishment evidence are “jurisdictional amendments.” Craddock v. State, 32 S.W.3d 886, 887 (Tex.App.—Waco 2000, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also Davis v. State, 870 S.W.2d 43, 46-47 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that notice requirements of 4206a are jurisdictional (B) holding that notice requirements under rule 252b3 are jurisdictional (C) holding that notice requirements under former rule 40b1 are jurisdictional (D) holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature (E) holding that notwithstanding rule 252b3 requirements appellate court could address jurisdictional defects
Output (English): holding that notwithstanding rule 252b3 requirements appellate court could address jurisdictional defects