of credit for which we have already held was error — Appellant’s possible service is eight days shy of the maximum sentence, we disagree that Appellant is constitutionally entitled to credit for time served prior to sentencing. For these reasons, we overrule the second part of Appellant’s first issue as it relates to time served between his arrest on June 16, 2014, and sentencing on June 8, 2015. C. Imposition of community supervision In his second issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing community supervision because he had waived his right to community supervision. The State argues that Appellant forfeited this argument by failing to appeal the original judgment imposing community supervision. See, e.g., Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). Appellant conceded at oral argument that he
holding that issues related to a conviction such as evidentiary sufficiency must be raised at the time community supervision is originally imposed holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered holding issues related to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court