Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Subsection (d) provides that a complaint regarding the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence in a nonjury case may be made for the first time on appeal. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(d) (emphasis added). The State contends that, by implication, the amendment recognizes the general rule — that complaints must be preserved to ensure appellate review — applies to all cases tried before a jury. We disagree. In criminal cases, an appellate court must always review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Rankin v. State, 46 S.W.3d 899, 901 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). “A claim regarding sufficiency of the evidence need not be preserved for review at the trial level and is not waived by the failure to do so.” Id.; see also Grayson v. State, 82 S.W.3d 357, 358-59 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Davila v. State, 930 S.W.2d 641, 648 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review (B) holding that a factual sufficiency complaint in a parental termination case may be reviewed even though it was not preserved in the trial court (C) holding that factual sufficiency claim need not be preserved pursuant to texas rule of appellate procedure 331 (D) recognizing this texas rule (E) holding that a sufficiency challenge must be preserved in the trial court in a parental termination case to be reviewed on appeal
Output (English): holding that a factual sufficiency complaint in a parental termination case may be reviewed even though it was not preserved in the trial court