to the extent that his complaints regarding the capital murder case are intended to also apply to the trial court’s actions in the burglary case, we overrule his challenge, if any, to the judgment in that cause and likewise affirm the trial court’s judgment in the burglary case. 1 . Ex parte Park, 37 Tex.Crim. 590, 596-97, 40 S.W. 300, 302 (1897). 2 . See Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(a); Davis v. State, 203 S.W.3d 845, 849-53 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (discussing harmless error framework from Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1344, 127 S.Ct. 2037, 167 L.Ed.2d 774 (2007). 3 . See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a); New v. State, No. 02-03-00506-CR, 2005 WL 248526, at *3 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Feb. 3, 2005, pet. ref'd) ’ (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>); Hullaby v. State, 911 S.W.2d 921, 926
holding unrecorded objection made at bench did not preserve error regarding admission of evidence holding that the district court did not err when it declined to use defendants proposed questions and adequately covered the essence of the proposed questions through its own examination holding that by proceeding to trial without issuing the requested bench warrant it was clear the trial court implicitly denied the request holding that defendant acquiesced to counsels waiver of right to be present at bench conference where trial judge advised everyone in courtroom including defendant about the topic of the bench conference and defendant raised no objection to his absence holding error if any was not preserved regarding questions proposed at bench conference but disallowed because the record does not reveal what was said at the bench