that this sentence runs concurrent [sic] with any other sentence(s) unless it is indicated on the Judgment Addendum that the sentence is to run cumulatively. We conclude that because there is no written cumulation order, there is nothing for this court to reform. Appellant has failed to show any error. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s second issue. C. Is appellant’s punishment cruel and unusual? In his third issue, appellant contends his sentences were not proportional to the offenses committed, and thus violate his state and federal rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant did not raise these complaints in the trial court, and thus has failed to preserve them for appellate review. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a); Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (<HOLDING>); Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d 760, 768
holding that a cruel and unusual punishment claim is not jurisdictional and therefore may not be raised for the first time on appeal holding that the cumulative effect of consecutive sentences does not make punishment cruel and unusual holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved holding the constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment may be waived holding that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law