upon request, id. at 5405; as a result of the conflict between section 52.046 and Rule 13.1(a), the First Court of Appeals had held that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals exceeded its rulemaking authority by enacting the rule, id. at 5406 ; and to require the court reporter to attend a hearing, even for the brief period of time it would take to record that the making of a record was “excused by agreement,” would delay the preparation of appellate records. Id. at 5418. On the other side of the discussion, the supreme court’s liaison expressed the court’s concern, and the reason for the 1997 amendment, as follows: [W]e did talk about the concern that has been expressed by some lawyers particularly -, -, 2005 WL 2148999, at * 5 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 8, 2005, no pet. h.) (<HOLDING>). 2 . See Polasek v. State, 16 S.W.3d 82, 89-90
holding that appellant by failing to object to commissioners authority before or at the administrative hearing waived any challenge holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review holding that appellant failed to preserve error in court reporters failure to make record of hearing by failing to object 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