due process challenge. Equal Protection Challenge As part of his first issue, Sony also contends that section 545.420 of the Code is unconstitutional because the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and Texas Constitutions. Again, nothing in the record shows Sony asserted at trial a violation of his equal protection rights. Because Sony failed to make a specific or timely objection at trial on equal protection grounds, the issue was not preserved for appellate review. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a)(1); see also Flores v. State, 245 S.W.3d 432, 437 n. 14 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (highlighting that appellant waived equal protection claim when he neglected to raise issue at trial); Steadman v. State, 31 S.W.3d 738, 742 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we overrule Sony’s equal
holding complaint that sentence violated equal protection was waived because of failure to object at trial holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his sentence because he did not object at trial holding defendant waived complaint holding that a complaint is waived by the failure to object during the witness unsworn testimony holding that the state law violated equal protection principles