error by submitting a general verdict form to the jury, with “no instructive unanimity language with respect to the different counts within the different indictments.” In analyzing a jury charge complaint, we first determine (1) whether error exists in the charge, and then (2) whether sufficient harm resulted from the error to compel reversal. Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738, 743-44 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). The degree of harm necessary for reversal depends on whether the defendant preserved error by objection. Id. at 743. When a defendant fails to object, or affirmatively states that he has no objection to the charge as De Los Santos did, we will not reverse unless the record shows the defendant suffered “egregious harm.” Id. at 743-44; Bluitt v. State, 137 S.W.3d 51, 53 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (<HOLDING>). We will first address whether the charge
holding that counsel was deficient when he failed to object to error in jury charge referring to aggravated assault when the charge was assault on a public servant holding affirmative denial of objection is equivalent to failure to object to jury charge error holding that the failure to object to an instruction constitutes a waiver of error holding that to establish ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object during trial appellant must show trial court would have committed error in overruling objection holding that the district court erred in failing to properly charge the jury on defendants affirmative defenses