appellant did not preserve his complaint regarding the adequacy of the indictment. A defendant may not complain on appeal of any defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in an indictment or information if he did not object to the defect, error, or irregularity before trial. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.14(b) (West 2005). Appellant’s pretrial motion to quash did not complain of the indictment’s failure to allege a culpable mental state, and this issue was not raised at the hearing on the motion. If the indictment was defective for this reason, appellant forfeited his right to complain by failing to timely object. See Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263, 268 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). The allegations in the indictment were clear enough to permit appellant to identify the p.1999) (<HOLDING>); Gonzales v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838, 849
holding that each subsection of penal code section 22021a1b creates separate offense holding that penetration of anus and penetration of sexual organ although found in same subsection of section 22021a1b are separate offenses holding that section 3763133 creates a cause of action holding that fraud creates an exception to the rule holding that touching anus and touching genitals are separate offenses under penal code section 2211a1