v. State, 589 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (stating that because state’s counsel had no way of knowing whether defendant would testify, it was not error to comment on defendant’s failure to testify during voir dire). Appellant’s tenth point of error is overruled. In point of error eleven, appellant avers the trial court erred by permitting the State to refer to its client as the “law-abiding citizens of this county.” Appellant asserts that because the State only represents “law- abiding citizens” and is prosecuting him in this case, the comment suggests appellant’s guilt, and is therefore improper. Because appellant failed to preserve his complaint for our review, he has waived this point of error. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a); Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715, 741 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). Appellant’s eleventh point of error is
holding that a defendant who fails to object to an error at a plea colloquy hearing must satisfy the plain error rule holding that where the record is insufficient to show that the alleged error occurred the presumption that the trial court acted without error must prevail holding under former rule 52a appellant must object to alleged error in the trial court or such error is waived holding that appellant failed to preserve error in court reporters failure to make record of trial by failing to object holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error