offenders; that provision requires that the trial court direct a community supervision officer “to evaluate the appropriateness of, and a course of conduct necessary for, treatment, specialized supervision, or rehabilitation of the defendant.” Tex.Code CRIM. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 9A(c). Although Jimenez’s counsel requested a presentence investigation, Jimenez’s counsel never specifically requested a section 9A presentence investigation, nor did he mention the separate presentence investigation requirement for sex offenders. Because Jimenez did not make the trial court aware of this specific complaint, we hold that Jimenez has failed to preserve error on this issue. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a); cf. Nguyen v. State, 222 S.W.3d 537, 541 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>); Wright v. State, 873 S.W.2d 77, 83
holding that right to section 9 presentence investigation is forfeitable by inaction holding that the information contained in a presentence report is reliable because it is based upon the presentence officers research of the records contact with relevant agencies and the gathering of information which is required to be included in a presentence report recognizing the defense has a right to comment on the presentence report and may introduce evidence holding that factual basis had to be established at time of guilty plea not later in presentence investigation holding that bald unsupported assertions by the defendant cannot refute presentence investigation report