Martin to CPS, Martin had a motive to fabricate her story about the assault. The trial court limited the cross-examination to whether or not CPS investigations existed and whether or not appellant was aware of them if they did. Defense counsel was not permitted to delve into the specifics of the investigations themselves, including the nature of the allegations being investigated. Although appellant’s trial counsel argued the relevance of the evidence he sought to present to the trial court, he did not argue that the court’s limitations on cross-examination amounted to a violation of appellant’s due process rights. Because counsel failed to make this argument in the trial court, it was not preserved for appellate review. See Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 339-40 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276, 280
holding that a claim was not preserved for review where the defense failed to object on the specific grounds advanced on appeal holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review holding that because defense counsel failed to alert the trial court that he was requesting relief based on a violation of defendants constitutional rights due process argument was not preserved for appellate review holding that because the appellant did not present to the administrative agency the argument it raised before this court the issue was not preserved and holding that even if preserved the argument failed holding failure to appoint two experts not preserved for review where defense counsel invited error by requesting only one