Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Heidelberg, 144 S.W.3d at 542-43; Cantu, 994 S.W.2d at 732-33; Barnum, 7 S.W.3d at 794. B. Merits Assuming, without deciding, that appellant’s objection in his motion for new trial sufficiently preserved his Eighth Amendment complaint for review, we address the merits of appellant’s argument regarding whether appellant’s sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const, amend. VIII. Generally, a sentence within the statutory range of punishment for an offense will not be held cruel or unusual under the Constitution of either Texas or the United States. Harris v. State, 656 S.W.2d 481, 486 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Hill v. State, 493 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (<HOLDING>); Baldridge, 77 S.W.3d at 893-94. Here,
holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved holding that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law holding that a life sentence pursuant to  841 blaiii was not a cruel and unusual punishment holding that it is cruel and unusual to execute the insane holding that 75year sentence was not cruel or unusual because it was within statutory range