whether the error was harmless or reversible. For example, without a record, it is impossible for us to determine how much time counsel spent discussing Question One. Thus, we decline to extend the fundamental error doctrine to this case. It clearly does not apply. We also refuse to abandon our responsibility to look to the record for error so that we can independently and objectively assess both the error and its harm. In short, to evaluate Mason’s claims, we must review the trial record. Because Mason did not request the preparation of any part of the trial record, we are unable to address Mason’s claims that she likely would have prevailed but for the harm caused by the alleged charge errors. See Hiroms v. Scheffey, 76 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, because Mason did not timely file
holding where challenge was waived that appellate review is precluded holding that appellants failure to have trial proceedings transcribed precluded appellate review of whether trial court gave jury improper instruction holding that appellants failure to obtain a ruling at the trial level even on a constitutional issue precluded review on appeal holding that without transcript of trial proceedings appellate court cannot review underlying evidence so as to conclude that trial courts judgment is not supported by evidence holding that in a criminal trial the trial court must correct or amend an improper instruction if the proper instruction is necessary for the jury to understand the case