he had "No objection” to the evidence at issue when offered during trial. 2 . Holmes v. State, 223 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (“We conclude here, as we did in Bell, that appellant did not waive his right to an article 38.23 instruction, and because he raised a fact issue regarding the legality of the seizure of the cocaine, he was entitled to such an instruction."); see also Bell v. State, 881 S.W.2d 794, 802 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref d). 3 . Hromadka v. State, No. 1329-00, 2003 WL 1845067 (Tex.Crim.App. April 9, 2003) (not designated for publication). As an unpublished opinion, Hromadka has no precedential weight and must not be cited as legal authority. Tex.R.App. P. 77.3. 4 .See Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504, 510 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (<HOLDING>). 5 . At the time of appellant’s trial and
holding that suppression of evidence by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the defendant upon request violates the defendants right to due process where the evidence is material holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury holding that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction under article 3823 only when the evidence heard by the jury raises an affirmatively contested issue of fact that is material to the lawfulness of the challenged conduct in obtaining the evidence holding appellant did not waive right to article 3823 instruction in failing to object to introduction of evidence when he raised a fact issue regarding the legality of the seizure of the cocaine holding that the defendant could not appeal a jury instruction where he did not object to the challenged instruction but in fact requested it and stated he was satisfied with it