791 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995, no pet.) (same). The record shows the jury made a deadly weapon finding, but the judgment signed by the trial court does not reflect that finding as required. See Poe, 751 S.W.2d at 875-76. Accordingly, we sustain the State’s cross point, and reform the trial court’s judgment to reflect a deadly weapon finding. Conclusion We overrule McCallum’s appellate issues, sustain the State’s cross point, and affirm the trial court’s judgment as reformed. 1 . The issue regarding McCallum’s affiliation with the Aryan Brotherhood was raised in a pre-trial motion in limine. However, the trial court instructed McCallum’s counsel that if it became an issue at trial, he should object and approach the bench. See Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11, 14-15 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). McCallum did raise one objection, stating
holding litigant preserves an issue on appeal where substance of the objection has been thoroughly explored during the hearing on the motion in limine holding that a definitive ruling in limine preserves an issue for appellate review without the need for later objection holding grant or denial of motion in limine is preliminary ruling and normally preserves nothing for appellate review holding that trial courts have discretion to decide whether litigation conduct violates a ruling on a motion in limine recognizing a ruling sustaining a motion in limine merely adds a procedural step to the offer of evidence and that if the evidence is not offered there is nothing preserved to review on appeal