To preserve a complaint for appellate review, the complaining party must not only make a request, objection, or motion to the trial court, the request must be timely. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1); Carrillo v. State, 29 S.W.3d 262, 263 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd). Fairness requires the complaining party to raise the complaint when it is possible to correct the error.
To preserve a complaint for appellate review, the complaining party must make a timely request, objection or motion to the trial court. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1); Carrillo v. State, 29 S.W.3d 262, 263 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd). Fairness requires the complaining party to raise the complaint when it is possible to correct the error.
The appellant never complained that the procedural requirements under Article 21.25 were not satisfied. See Carrillo v. State, 29 S.W.3d 262, 263-64 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd), on remand from 2 S.WJ d 275 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (holding that one must object to any perceived procedural defect in the substitution of an indictment to preserve the error for appeal). Nor did he make any such challenge in the court of appeals.
An appellant who wishes to complain that the procedural requirements of Article 21.25 were not satisfied must raise the issue. See Carrillo v. State, 29 S.W.3d 262, 263-64 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd). Because appellant did not raise the issue in his application for habeas relief, the issue is not preserved for appeal.