In Brennan v. State, 140 S.W.3d 779, 781 (Tex. App.--Houston 14th Dist. 2004, pet. ref'd) the Court explained that, when deciding whether to address the merits of an appeal of a denial of a motion to suppress, the appellate court must first identify the evidence, or "fruits," of the allegedly unlawful seizure that the trial court held would not be suppressed. If it is not clear from the testimony and exhibits what the fruits are, then the appellate court need not address the merits of the claim. Id. Moreover, an assertion that the fruits of the illegal seizure are "obvious" and "can easily and unmistakably be ascertained by the reviewing the record" is insufficient. See id. Thus, this court held that the appellant presented nothing for review because his points of error challenging the denial of his motion to suppress failed to identify what, if any, evidence that was ruled upon by the denial. Id. Appellant's written motion requested suppression of the ecstasy, cocaine, marijuana, and "all statements made . . . and such other actions" of appellant at the time of and after the stop, arrest, and search based on several state and federal constitutional grounds. Although the motion suggests appellant was attempting to suppress specific evidence, he does not identify any evidence that he claims should have been suppressed in either his brief or in the hearing on the motion below. As noted in Brennan, it is not this court's role to develop appellant's issues for him. Id. Because appellant fails to identify what evidence he contends was erroneously suppressed, he presents nothing for our review. Id.