With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". be raised without the benefit of a reporter’s record is a jurisdictional defect apparent on the face of the record. But this appeal does not involve a jurisdictional defect. None of the parties, including Mason, allege that the trial court was without authority to hear the ease. Furthermore, even when a litigant alleges fundamental error, an appellate court must have a record. Without a record, an appellate court is hobbled; it cannot perform its review of the record to assess for itself if error occurred and, if so, to as statement of issues, we must presume the omitted portions of the record are relevant and support the trial court’s judgment. Christiansen, 782 S.W.2d at 843; see also Coleman v. Carpentier, 132 S.W.3d 108, 110-11 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2004, no pet.) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). We overrule Masons first three issues

A: holding that appellant failed to preserve error in court reporters failure to make record of trial by failing to object
B: holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record  there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding
C: holding that without transcript of trial proceedings appellate court cannot review underlying evidence so as to conclude that trial courts judgment is not supported by evidence
D: holding that in absence of reporters record or compliance with rule 346c appellate court would presume evidence adduced at trial supported trial courts judgment
D.