Ex parte Lockett, 956 S.W.2d 41, 42 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). 817 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). II. Analysis A.

Id. at 807 n. 8. Next, the dissent argues that the majority's decision conflicts with the Court of Criminal Appeals' holdings in Ex Parte Williams, 65 S.W.3d 656 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001), Fullbright v. State, 818 S.W.2d 808 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991), and Heath v. State. 817 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). However, we find these cases to be distinguishable from the present case.

Although a majority of the Court in Williams chose to deny relief upon a different ground, this Court has subsequently suggested that the estoppel issue raised by the concurring opinion is an open question. 817 S.W.2d 335, 337-40 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (plurality opinion on rehearing). 65 S.W.3d 656, 658-60 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001)(Keller, P.J., concurring).

In his Petition for Discretionary Review, Ramirez cites Heath and footnotes in Manuel for the proposition that he can challenge the validity of the underlying conviction on direct appeal of his adjudication of guilt. Heath v. State, 817 S.W.2d 335 (Tex Crim. App. 1991); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). Both of these cases can be distinguished from the situation presented by Ramirez.

See Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 at n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) ("[T]his Court has long held that a sentence is void when the punishment is unauthorized."); Ex parte Beck, 922 S.W.2d 181 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (even where "no direct appeal was taken from the conviction," habeas corpus relief available to correct illegal sentences); Heath v. State, 817 S.W.2d 335, 336 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (opinion on original submission) ("a defect which renders a sentence void may be raised at any time"); Ex parte McIver, 586 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) (habeas corpus relief available to a person in custody under a sentence which is void because the punishment is unauthorized). Moreover, in McCain v. State, 67 S.W.3d 204 (Tex.Crim.App.-2002) (Holcomb. J., dissenting), I explained:

The Court of Appeals' holding and appellant's arguments turn on a line of cases which hold that "if a punishment is not authorized by law, that portion of the sentence imposing that punishment is void." Heath v. State, 817 S.W.2d 335, 336 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (opinion on original submission) (portion of sentence granting probation where defendant not eligible for probation under controlling statute held void and could be raised at any time); seealso Hern v. State, 892 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) ("conviction was void because the sentence exceeded the maximum allowed for a third degree felony, of which [the defendant] had been convicted"), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1105 (1995); Ex parte Johnson, 697 S.W.2d 605, 606-607 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985) (imposition of fine in addition to prison term not "authorized by law" and therefore void); Wilson v. State, 677 S.W.2d 518, 524 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984) (where punishment was assessed at four years confinement, but statutory minimum was five years confinement, judgment of conviction was void). Nearly every case that has held a sentence not "authorized by law" or void (such that the alleged defect could be raised for the first time on appeal) involved the trial court's assessment of a punishment that w

The Court of Appeals approved of the new trial order, stating the original sentence was void and the trial court's only alternative was to withdraw appellant's guilty plea. The court cited Shannon v. State, 708 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Cr.App. 1986), and Heath v. State, 817 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991). Finally, the Court of Appeals held that when a defendant successfully repudiates a plea bargain, either by withdrawing the plea or by successfully challenging his conviction on appeal, no double jeopardy violation occurs by restoring the parties to the position that existed prior to the plea bargain.

A.I. thus relies on a line of cases of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on "illegal sentences." See Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804, 806 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003); Heath v. State, 817 S.W.2d 335, 339 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (op. on reh'g). Under that line of cases, "[u]nlike most trial errors which are forfeited if not timely asserted, a party is not required to make a contemporaneous objection to the imposition of an illegal sentence."

Nor has appellant waived his complaint by not raising it below. See Heath v. State, 817 S.W.2d 335, 336 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). A void sentence cannot be waived. Ex Parte Sims, 868 S.W.2d 803, 804 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993).

922 S.W.2d 181, 182 (1996). 817 S.W.2d 335, 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), abrogated by Ex parte Williams, 65 S.W.3d 656, 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (en banc). 88 S.W.2d 480 (1935).