In Moff v. State, 131 S.W.3d 485, 489 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), the appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove the value of the items that he stole because the officer that testified concerning the value was neither the owner of the items, nor an expert. Moff, 131 S.W.3d at 490. The Court reasoned that this issue was really a combination of a sufficiency question (the State failed to prove the element of value) and an evidentiary question (the State's evidence of value was not admissible). Id. The evidentiary question was not preserved, but the sufficiency question remained for review. Id. Though restitution is not an element of the offense like the issue in Moff, Drilling's situation is analogous. While Drilling repeatedly informed the trial court of the statutory requirements for restitution, he did not specifically object to the admissibility of the State's evidence. Therefore, Drilling has waived his evidentiary complaint. Id.