court declined to suppress. Gonzales v. State, 966 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). If it is not clear from the testimony and exhibits what the “fruits” are, then we need not address the merits of the claim. Id. In this case, Appellant’s motions sought to suppress “certain items [that] were allegedly seized” and “any evidence obtained pursuant to the warrants.” Appellant’s brief in this court similarly states that he sought to suppress “all evidence seized” in his four cases. Nowhere, though, has Appellant identified the specific items of evidence or categories of evidence he sought to exclude by challenging the three search warrants. Appellant has therefore presented nothing for our review. See Brennan v. State, 140 S.W.3d 779, 781 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref d) (<HOLDING>). We overrule the remainder of Appellant’s
holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review holding that issues not raised to or ruled upon by the lower court are not preserved for appellate review holding issues not ruled upon by the trial judge are not preserved for appellate review holding global request to suppress all evidence seized or obtained from alleged illegal searches and failure to identify what if any evidence was ruled upon by the denial presented nothing for appellate review holding issues not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review