1, 20 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (citing McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 512 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)), see Dunklin v. State, 194 S.W.3d 14, 23 (Tex.App.Tyler 2006, no pet.); Willis v. State, 192 S.W.3d 585, 597 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2006, pet. ref'd); Dennis v. State, 151 S.W.3d 745, 752 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2004, pet. ref'd); King v. State, 17 S.W.3d 7, 23 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (op. on reh’g). Because Pelache has failed to cite supporting authority for his arguments that the notice to him that the State was seeking to enhance his sentence violated his right to due process, or that the process of enhancing his sentence violated his right to due process, issues five and six are inadequately briefed and presents nothing for review. Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(f); Rocha, 16 S.W.3d at 20 (<HOLDING>). I would overrule issues five and six. For
holding that an appellate brief is deficient per the missouri rules of court where it fails to cite authority for an argument or fails to specify why such a citation is unavailable holding waiver results if an appellant fails to properly develop an issue or cite to legal authority to support his contention in his appellate brief holding that an appellant waived a claim where he failed to cite any legal authority in support of an argument in his appellate brief holding an argument waived for failure to cite authority holding that an argument that fails to cite to supporting authority in support of claim presents nothing for review