counsel reviewed the information on which the State intended to rely at trial. We hold the State did not violate the trial court’s discovery order and did not thwart appellant’s preparation for, or presentation of, its defense. See Oprean, 201 S.W.3d at 728. We overrule appellant’s sixth issue. VI. Constitutional challenges In his first issue, appellant complains that Section 38.122 is unconstitutional as facially vague and overbroad and “as applied.” However, appellant did not urge “as applied” challenges until he filed his motion for new trial. Appellant did not present the motion for new trial to the trial court and did not obtain a ruling on the motion. Presentment requires more than the mere filing of the motion. See Gillenwaters v. State, 205 S.W.3d 534, 537 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (<HOLDING>); Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76, 79-80
holding that issues must be raised and ruled upon in the trial court to be preserved for appellate review holding as applied challenges preserved because motion for new trial was filed and the trial court ruled holding issues not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review holding brady challenge not preserved because trial court never ruled on complaint holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for review