(Tex.Crim.App.1988) (‘While the court is not required to hear any pretrial motion to suppress evidence the accused retains his right to raise any appropriate objection at trial.”). We hold that Flores did not preserve error over the trial court’s implicit denial of his suppression motion. See Wilson, 857 S.W.2d at 94. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we overrule Flores’s sole issue. Flores’s admission to his probation officer that he had consumed alcohol the night of his arrest supports revocation of his community supervision. See Jones v. State, 112 S.W.3d 266, 269 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 . See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (Vernon 2002). 2 . See Green v. State, 615 S.W.2d 700, 709 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980)
holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint holding that  1109a requires causal connection between breach and loss holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury holding that eight months between charges and dismissal created inference of causal connection holding confession inadmissable because no intervening events broke causal connection between illegal arrest and confession