The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Appellant mainly relies on a claim of illegal search and seizure. It is possible that there was an exploratory search too broad to be properly incident to De-Catur’s arrest. But it would appear that all of the tangible real objects offered in evidence were seized from points immediately adjacent to the spot where De-Catur was arrested. If some item crept into evidence that was illegally seized, no record was made in the trial court and we are not told what it was.