Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): guilty of the aggravated robbery committed on the dates alleged in the indictment. Appellant also admitted using a knife in all four of the aggravated robberies. He persisted in and adamantly stuck to his admission of guilt. Because appellant at the punishment phase of his trial clearly and unequivocally admitted he was guilty of each of the four aggravated robberies of which the jury found him guilty, he has waived any evidentiary errors which occurred during the guilt/innocence phase of his trial. McGlothlin, 896 S.W.2d at 186; DeGarmo, 691 S.W.2d at 661. Appellant’s error complained of in point of error number four is specifically waivable. Sims, 502 S.W.2d at 731; Creel v. State, 493 S.W.2d 814, 819 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Sheridan v. State, 485 S.W.2d 920, 921 (Tex.Crim.App.1972) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, appellant’s complaints raised in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that testimony given by a defendant in support of a motion to suppress cannot be admitted as evidence of his guilt at trial (B) holding defendant waived right to challenge incourt identification when he admitted guilt at punishment phase of trial (C) holding defendant waived right to contest lawfulness of search on appeal after he had admitted guilt at punishment phase of trial (D) holding that a showing of actual prejudice was required where the defendant claimed that counsel was ineffective for conceding guilt at the guilt phase of a capital trial (E) holding evidence admissible in punishment phase of trial because evidence had bearing on appellants personal responsibility and moral guilt
Output (English): holding evidence admissible in punishment phase of trial because evidence had bearing on appellants personal responsibility and moral guilt