or the United States shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.23(a). When there is an issue as to whether evidence was obtained by such a violation, the jury shall be instructed that if it believes, or has a reasonable doubt, that the evidence was obtained by such a violation, then it shall disregard any such evidence. Id. An article 38.23 jury instruction must be given in any case in which the defense raises a factual dispute about the legality of how the evidence was obtained; the requirement for such an instruction does not depend on a request from .the defendant. Pickens v. State, 165 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex.Crim.App.2005); see also Holmes v. State, 223 S.W.3d 728, 730-31 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 248 S.W.3d 194 (Tex.Crim.App.2008). A
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 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 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 defendant did not expressly or implicitly waive objection raised in motion to strike the evidence when defendant later did not object to a jury instruction covering the same issue holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence