ned only one allegation, “[T]hat the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence which was presented in these cases.”  Appellant now contends that the punishment set forth violates his due process rights under the United States Constitution.  See U.S. Const. amend VIII.  We disagree and will affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Preservation of Error

            Before we can begin any analysis, we must determine if appellant’s complaint has been preserved for appellate review.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1).[5]  Appellant couches his argument in terms of a due process violation.  However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled that allegations of due process violations are subject to the requirement of preservation by an objection or motion filed with the trial court.  See Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276, 279-80 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009).  Our review of the record reveals that appellant lodged no objection to the trial court’s sentences at the time of the punishment hearing.  Further, the subsequently filed motion for new trial contains no reference to appellant’s due process argument.  A fair reading of the motion for new trial does not lead us to the conclusion that appellant’s current argument was apparent from the context of the motion.  Rule 33.1(a)(1).  Accordingly, appellant’s issue has not been preserved for review and is therefore waived.  Anderson, 301 S.W.3d 279-80.  Appellant’s sole issue is overruled.

Conclusion

            Having overruled appellant’s only issue, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

                                                                                                Mackey K. Hancock

                                                                                                            Justice

Do not publish.