Pelache lodged his objection, he did not clearly convey to the trial court “the precise and proper application of the law as well as the underlying rationale.” See Pena, 285 S.W.3d at 463^464. Thus, Pelache did not put the trial court on notice that it should consider whether enhancement of his punishment from a state-jail felony to a second-degree felony violated his right to due process. Nothing in the record suggests that the trial court was aware of Pelache’s argument that enhancement of his punishment from a state-jail felony to a second-degree felony violated his right to due process. Therefore, Pelache did not preserve error. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1; Pena, 285 S.W.3d at 468-469; see also Alexander v. State, 137 S.W.3d 127,130-31 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Fundamental error may be raised for the first
holding that failure to object to trial court about violations of federal and state due process waived appellate review of those claims holding that failure to object to prosecutors comment on defendants failure to testify preserved nothing for appellate review holding that there is no due process right to appellate review holding errors based on the constitutional rights to confrontation and due process may be waived by failure to object at trial holding plaintiffs waived their right to appellate review of the admission of an experts testimony by failing to object to it at trial