In Aparicio v. State, No. 14-03-01213-CR, 2004 WL 2283584 (Tex. App.--Houston 14th Dist. Oct. 12, 2004, no pet.), appellant's written motion to suppress generally alleged his statements should be suppressed based on violations of Tex. Code Crim. Proc.article 38.22. However, during the suppression hearing appellant argued only that appellant appeared "half asleep" and "didn't really seem to know what was going on." Id. Then, on appeal, appellant tried to argue his statements were inadmissible under article 38.22, section 3(a)(3) because the device used to record the statement was not capable of making an accurate recording, the recording was not accurate, and the operator of the device was not competent. The Court found appellant's argument raised on appeal did not comport with his objection made to the trial court, thus appellant failed to preserve the issue for review. In a footnote, the Court stated "despite appellant's reference to Article 38.22, he did not alert the trial court to the alleged errors of which he now complains. Accordingly, appellant's mere reference to Article 38.22 is not sufficient to preserve error on appeal."