In Garza v. State, 896 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) the court of appeals issued a revised opinion pursuant to former Rule 101, but it did so after the time limit for doing so had expired. The appellant argued that the court was permitted to extend the time limit under former Rule 2(b). The Court noted the language of former Rule 2(a), which provided that the Rules "shall not be construed as to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the courts of appeal." Id. at 194. The Court held that the court of appeals was without jurisdiction to issue the Rule 101 opinion. Id. at 195. In doing so, we recognized that "the time limits set forth in the Rules of Appellate Procedure are not discretionary. The courts of appeals have no authority to suspend the operation of a rule of appellate procedure in order to create jurisdiction in the court of appeals where no jurisdiction exists." Id. at 194.