MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Francis

Arthur Sotero pleaded guilty to indecency with a child younger than seventeen years old, and the jury assessed punishment at twelve years in prison. In two issues, appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to admonish him on the deportation consequences of his plea and in overruling his objection to inadmissible evidence. We affirm. In his first issue, appellant contends his conviction must be reversed because he was not admonished on the deportation consquences of his plea as required by statute. Before accepting a plea of guilty, the trial court shall admonish a defendant of the fact that if the defendant is not a citizen of the United States of America, a plea of guilty may result in deportation, exclusion from admission to this country, or the denial of naturalization. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2006). A trial court errs if it accepts a defendant's guilty plea without admonishing him regarding the deportation consequences of his plea in accordance with article 26.13. See Carranza v. State, 980 S.W. 653, 656 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). Here, the record does not show appellant was admonished regarding the possibility of deportation. Thus, the trial court erred. However, when the record conclusively shows that an appellant is a United States citizen, any error in failing to give the deportation admonishment is harmless. Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); Splawn v. State, 949 S.W.2d 867, 876 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.). The record in this case contains State's Exhibit 24, a certified copy of a 2005 judgment showing appellant's conviction for violation of a protective order. Included in the exhibit is the arraignment sheet. At the bottom of the arraignment sheet, a check-marked box shows "The person arrested stated that he is a citizen of the United States of America[.]" Thus, the record affirmatively shows appellant is a United States citizen, and the trial court's error in failing to admonish him of the deportation consequences of his plea is harmless. We overrule appellant's first issue. In his second issue, appellant argues the trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach one of his punishment witnesses, Frankie Contreras, with a prior conviction for resisting arrest. The State asked the question regarding the prior conviction in its first question of Contreras on cross-examination, and appellant did not object. Only after a series of several questions and answers regarding the issue, during which Contreras said he did not remember any such arrest, did appellant object to improper impeachment. Under these circumstances, we conclude appellant has not preserved his complaint. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). We overrule the second issue. We affirm the trial court's judgment.