In State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), the Court explained that rule 25.2(d), which addresses amended notices of appeal in criminal cases, cannot subsequently give a court of appeals jurisdiction once jurisdiction is lost: It is true that Rule 25.2(d) allows an amendment to a notice of appeal. But when the Legislature granted this Court rule-making authority, it expressly provided that the rules could not abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of a litigant. And our caselaw prevents a court of appeals from using an appellate rule to create jurisdiction where none exists. It does not matter which appellate rule the court of appeals attempts to use. . . . 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. Riewe, slip op. at 12.