to a particular cause, a broad scope of review and revision has been asserted by the appellate courts of this state — one that is still recognized, acknowledged and confirmed by the Legislature. Id.; see also Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.25 (Vernon Supp. 20[ ]05). In accord with Carter are Lopez v. State, 708 S.W.2d 446, 448-49 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Barney v. State, 698 S.W.2d 114, 123 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Hall v. State, 86 S.W.3d 235, 239 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. ref'd); Frost v. State, 25 S.W.3d 395, 399 (Tex.App.Austin 2000, no pet.); Rodriguez v. State, 939 S.W.2d 211, 219-20 (Tex.App.Austin 1997, no pet.); State v. Lara, 924 S.W.2d 198, 201 n. 3 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1996, no pet.); and Garza v. State, 676 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1984, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). I would abate the appeal and ask both the
holding it is a wellestablished rule that grounds of error not asserted by points of error or argument in the court of appeals are waived holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals holding that the authority of a court of appeals to consider unassigned error in criminal cases is not open to question recognizing the open question holding that the tax court does not have authority to consider section 6630c2 issues that were not raised before the appeals office