With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Clause of the United States and Texas Constitutions. The State counters that Sony failed to preserve this issue for appeal because Sony did not assert in the trial court that the statute was facially void or void as applied to him. When challenging the constitutionality of a statute for vagueness, there are two types of challenges: (1) an “as applied” challenge, involving whether a statute is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant’s particular conduct, and (2) a “facial” challenge, involving whether a statute is unconstitutional on its face. Fluellen v. State, 104 S.W.3d 152, 167 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.). Texas law is clear that an “as applied” challenge cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 496 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (<HOLDING>); Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 846, 861

A: holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal
B: holding appellant waived his challenge to statute as vague as applied because he did not specifically object at trial
C: holding that appellant by failing to object to commissioners authority before or at the administrative hearing waived any challenge
D: holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his sentence because he did not object at trial
B.