With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2279, 90 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986)). 44 . Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Sevcik, 267 S.W.3d 867, 871 (Tex.2008). 45 . Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State, 66 S.W.3d 213, 220 (Tex.2001) (op. on reh'g); City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750, 753-54 (Tex.1995). 46 . State v. Cent. Expressway Sign Assocs., 302 S.W.3d 866, 870 (Tex.2009) (op. on reh'g); Reliance Steel, 267 S.W.3d at 873. 47 . Interstate Northborough P’ship, 66 S.W.3d at 220. 48 . Serv. Corp. Int'l v. Guerra, 348 S.W.3d 221, 236 (Tex.2011). 49 . Id. 50 . See Sw. Country Enters., 991 S.W.2d at 493. 51 . See id. at 493-94; see also Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(B), 33.2; Tex.R. Evid. 103(a)(2). 52 . See Taveau v. Brenden, 174 S.W.3d 873, 876-77 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2005, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). 53 . See Amoco Chems. Corp. v. Stafford, 663

A: holding evidentiary issues waived because court could not tell based on reporters transcription where tapes were stopped and started and which parts of tapes were actually heard by jury
B: holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court
C: holding that a remand and possibly an evidentiary hearing was necessary for reconsideration of the plaintiffs claim for injuries allegedly caused by the states negligent failure to maintain a public highway because court of appeals could not tell whether parties presented and court considered all relevant evidence on the issue
D: holding that requirements of apprendi were not met where facts on which sentence enhancement was based were not charged and submitted to the jury
A.