to Newton after personally seeing the alleged infraction. Yet, appellant argues before us that no rule or traffic regulation required someone to signal before exiting an interstate, and, therefore,, the stop lacked lawful basis. This contention, or ground for suppressing the evidence was not asserted below, however. Instead, other reasons were urged by appellant as basis for granting his motion to suppress. Consequently, the ground being urged now was. lost. In other words, the grounds urged below do not comport with those urged on appeal, and’that effectively .waives. the latter as basis for reversal. Ayala v. State, No. 07-16-00411-CR, 2017 WL 3611617 at *1-2, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 7650 at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 10, 2017, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). Articles 38.22 and 38.23 Jury Instructions
holding that the complaint on appeal must comport with the trial objection holding that defendant failed to preserve for appellate review complaint that prosecutors use of postarrest silence against defendant violated the texas constitution because complaint did not comport with defendants trial court objection based solely on the federal constitution holding that an issue was not preserved for appellate review because appellants trial objection does not comport with the issue he raised on appeal holding that appellant failed to preserve error because it did not present appellate complaint to trial court holding that appellant did not preserve his complaint for review because the grounds raised on appeal did not comport with those urged to the trial court as justifying suppression