they get out of county and they request a court reporter and they think the court reporter is coming in the room, ... because that’s what automatically happens ... in their home county. And about halfway through the hearing they look around, and nobody is taking the record, and they find that you have to ask twice in this particular county or you have to ask nicely or there [is] some additional requirement.... The problem was that the Court discussed, and a number of the members are gone now that were there, but the concern that a lawyer would be expecting that he had jumped through the hoops only to look around and find that it wasn’t good enough. That was the concern. Id. at 5410-11. At the conclusion of the 2572429, at *1 (Tex.App.-East-land Oct. 13, 2005, no. pet. h.) (mem.op.) (<HOLDING>); Nabelek v. State., No. 14-03-00965-CV,-
holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review holding that appellant failed to preserve error because it did not present appellate complaint to trial court holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that appellant failed to preserve error in court reporters failure to make record of trial by failing to object holding ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to object to prosecutors comments cognizable in postconviction motion since court unable to review on appeal because trial counsel failed to preserve error