As long as it is made knowingly and voluntarily, a defendant's post-sentencing waiver of the right to appeal is both valid and binding. Dorsey v. State, 84 S.W.3d 8, 10 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (citing Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 220 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (affirming 996 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999); Littlejohn v. State, 33 S.W.3d 41, 43 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. ref'd)). A defendant's valid waiver of appeal serves to deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction.

Moreover, in determining when defendants were bound by their waivers of appeal, courts of appeals have consistently expressed their rulings in terms of whether the waiver was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, even when they acknowledged the defendant had waived the right pursuant to an agreement and had received some benefit. See, e.g., Dorsey v. State, 84 S.W.3d 8 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002); Schneider v. State, 9 S.W.3d 466 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999); Renya v. State, 993 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. ref'd); Turner v. State, 956 S.W.2d 789 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997); Perez v. State, 885 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994). Although in some court of appeals' opinions, the courts have referred to "holding the defendant to the bargain," the conclusion that the defendant should be bound by the waiver made pursuant to a bargain has rested first on determining that the defendant's waiver was valid and only then on whether the defendant received the benefit of the bargain.

lacks jurisdiction over and must dismiss an appeal when the defendant has validly waived [his] right of appeal." Lopez v. State, 595 S.W.3d 897, 899 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. ref'd) (citing Jones v. State, 488 S.W.3d 801, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)); see also Dorsey v. State, 84 S.W.3d 8, 10 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (citing Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)).

The motion stated that Simmons violated the prohibition against alcohol use by "[operating] a motor vehicle in a public place while . . . intoxicated" and by "introducing an excessive amount of alcohol into her system" on or about January 2, 2008. Simmons, however, did not raise this issue at the hearing, foregoing the reading of the motion and entering a plea of not guilty. Not having raised this alleged defect of notice at the revocation hearing, she failed to preserve any error. See Dorsey v. State, 84 S.W.3d 8 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.). IV. The Evidence Was Sufficient to Support Revocation

A defendant may even waive the right to appeal. Dorsey v. State, 84 S.W.3d 8, 10 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.). A valid waiver of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal.

In another pro se motion filed the same day, Smith alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel allowed Smith to sign a waiver of his right to appeal. In Texas, "a defendant in a noncapital criminal case `may waive any rights secured him by law. . . .'" Dorsey v. State, 84 S.W.3d 8, 9 — 10 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (quoting Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.14(a) (Vernon Supp. 2002)). A waiver of the right to appeal that is made after the pronouncement of judgment and sentence is valid and binding.

Since Davis, represented by appointed counsel, signed the waiver of his right of appeal after the trial court pronounced judgment and sentence against him, we treat this as a valid waiver of Davis' right of appeal.See Dorsey v. State, 84 S.W.3d 8, 10 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.). Davis' subsequent notice of appeal does not withdraw or affect his prior waiver.

However, even error affecting constitutional rights may be waived without proper preservation. See Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526, 536 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1128 (2001); see, e.g., Dorsey v. State, 84 S.W.3d 8, 10 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (in which defendant waived issue of due process violation). Smith did not object to the lack of pleadings at or before trial.

The motion to dismiss is overruled. Dorsey v. State, No. 06-01-00087-CR, 2002 WL 731127 (Tex.App.-Texarkana Apr. 26, 2002, no pet.); Clayburn v. State, 985 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, no pet.); see Perez v. State, 989 S.W.2d 427, 428 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.). We now turn to a review of Smith's appeal on its merits.