defendant failed to preserve error in Texas

2011App. 1985) (explaining that any error in failing to read and plead to enhancement allegations is subject to preservation); Lee v. State, 239 S.W.3d 873, 876-77 (Tex. App. – Waco 2007, pet. ref’d) (holding that the defendant failed to preserve error by not raising the error in the trial court when the indictment was not read to the jury and the defendant did not enter a plea); Burley v. State, Nos. 14-09-00868-CR & 14-09-00869-CR, 2010 WL 5238583 , at *2 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 16, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“Appellant argues for the first time on

2011App. 1985) (explaining that any error in failing to read and plead to enhancement allegations is subject to preservation); Lee v. State , 239 S.W.3d 873, 876-77 (Tex. App. - Waco 2007, pet. ref'd) (holding that the defendant failed to preserve error by not raising the error in the trial court when the indictment was not read to the jury and the defendant did not enter a plea); Burley v. State , Nos. 14-09-00868-CR & 14-09-00869-CR, 2010 WL 5238583 , at *2 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 16, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("Appellant argues for the first time o

2012App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Ratliff, 320 S.W.3d at 862 (explaining that a defendant’s “failure to object at the time [a detective] specifically described the physical evidence and explained how he found that evidence forfeited any error 12 associated with [the defendant’s] objection to the State’s later introduction of the evidence”); Tell v. State, 908 S.W.2d 535 , 543–44 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.) (holding that the defendant failed to preserve error by allowing several questions and answers regarding a ski mask before finally objecting); Thomas v. State, 884 S.W.2d 215 , 216–17 (Tex. A

2012App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Ratliff , 320 S.W.3d at 862 (explaining that a defendant’s “failure to object at the time [a detective] specifically described the physical evidence and explained how he found that evidence forfeited any error associated with [the defendant’s] objection to the State’s later introduction of the evidence”); Tell v. State , 908 S.W.2d 535 , 543–44 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.) (holding that the defendant failed to preserve error by allowing several questions and answers regarding a ski mask before finally objecting); Thomas v. State , 884 S.W.2d 215 , 216–17 (Tex. A

2009See Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995)(finding that the defendant failed to preserve error that his sentence violated constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because he never objected at trial).

2009See Curry v. State , 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995)(finding that the defendant failed to preserve error that his sentence violated constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because he never objected at trial).

2011Id.

2010App. 2006) (explaining that a defendant must object when he has “notice that the proceedings may have gone amiss,” and he has this notice when he learns that the State is seeking a higher penalty despite the enhancement allegations not being read to the jury, and a defendant learns that the State is seeking a higher penalty when enhancement allegations are contained in the indictment); Warren , 693 S.W.2d at 416 (explaining that the error of failing to read and plead to enhancement allegations “can be preserved by means of a motion for new trial, bill of exception, or motion to arrest judgment

2024App. P. 33.1. 32Id. 33Cortez v. State, 469 S.W.3d 593, 598 (Tex. Crim.

2024See Lambeth v. State, 523 S.W.3d 244, 247 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2017, no pet.) (defendant never asked 8 the trial court to provide more specific findings under Article 38.074, therefore the complaint was not preserved for review); see also Sustaita v. State, No. 14-18- 00811-CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 4250 , at **10-12 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 4, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (defendant never asked the trial court to provide more specific findings during the hearing concerning the complainant’s need for a support person and, therefore, the defendant failed t

2017See Mayfield v. State, Nos. 2-05-00386-CR, 2-05-00387-CR, 2007 WL 938697 , at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 29, 2007, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding Mayfield failed to preserve error regarding some of a challenged witness’s testimony because other witnesses testified to the same subject matter before the trial court granted a running objection to the challenged witness’s testimony); cf. Roderick v. State, 494 S.W.3d 868, 881 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (holding the defendant failed to preserve error in the admission of the State’s evidence

2017See Mayfield v. State, Nos. 2-05-00386-CR, 2-05-00387-CR, 2007 WL 938697 , at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 29, 2007, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding Mayfield failed to preserve error regarding some of a challenged witness’s testimony because other witnesses testified to the same subject matter before the trial court granted a running objection to the challenged witness’s testimony); cf. Roderick v. State, 494 S.W.3d 868, 881 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (holding the defendant failed to preserve error in the admission of the State’s evidence

2016P. 33.1; Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (stating that denial of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense is a right subject to forfeiture); Hayes v. State, 124 S.W.3d 781, 786-87 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), affd, 161 S.W.3d 507 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (the defendant failed to preserve error that the trial court’s exclusion of evidence prevented him from presenting a defense; the defendant only argued at trial that the evidence-.was admissible based on various rules concerning relevancy).

2016P. 33.1; Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (stating that denial of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense is a right subject to forfeiture); Hayes v. State, 124 S.W.3d 781, 786-87 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), affd, 161 S.W.3d 507 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (the defendant failed to preserve error that the trial court’s exclusion of evidence prevented him from presenting a defense; the defendant only argued at trial that the evidence-.was admissible based on various rules concerning relevancy).

2015If, as here, the defendant failed to preserve error by bringing omission of the instruction to the trial court’s attention, we will reverse only if the error is fundamental and “was so egregious and created such harm that the defendant ‘has not had a fair and impartial trial.’” Barrios v. State, 283 S.W.3d 348, 350 (Tex. Crim.

2015App. 2009) (quoting Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Johnson v. State, 879 S.W.2d 313, 317 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994, no pet.) (concluding that the defendant failed to preserve error for his complaint on appeal that the trial court erred in reinstating 10 two jurors rather than dismissing the array and calling a new venire panel when the defendant did not object on that basis at trial); Allen v. State, 811 S.W.2d 673, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (holding that any error by the trial court in not following Article 35.261 was not preserved when “[the defendant] never objected to the trial court’s failure to dismiss the jury and summo

2015Similarly, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals concluded in Nicholas v. State that the defendant failed to preserve error when he neither objected to the sentences, “as violating his constitutional rights at the time they were announced” nor “[raised] these arguments in a post-trial motion.” Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d 760, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d) (concluding that defendant waived claim that one concurrent and five consecutive sentences imposed for three counts of aggravated sexual assault of child and three counts of indecency with a child were cruel and unusual und

2015See Johnson v. State, 879 S.W.2d 313, 317 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994, no pet.) (concluding that the defendant failed to preserve error for his complaint on appeal that the trial court erred in reinstating 10 two jurors rather than dismissing the array and calling a new venire panel when the defendant did not object on that basis at trial); Allen v. State, 811 S.W.2d 673, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (holding that any error by the trial court in not following Article 35.261 was not preserved when “[the defendant] never objected to the trial court’s failure to dismiss the jury and summo

2014APP. 33.1; see also Sosa v. State, 230 S.W.3d 192, 194 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding that the defendant failed to preserve error that the trial court’s language indicated a decision that cumulating his sentences was predetermined).

2013App. 1996) (holding the defendant forfeited complaint about his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by failing to raise objection in the trial court on that basis); Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151-52 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d) (concluding the defendant failed to preserve Eighth Amendment argument that he received a disproportionate sentence); Teixeira v. State, 89 S.W.3d 190, 192 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. ref’d) (stating the defendant failed to preserve error that the trial court arbitrarily refused to consider the entire range of

2013App. 1996) (holding the defendant forfeited complaint about his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by failing to raise objection in the trial court on that basis); Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151-52 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d) (concluding the defendant failed to preserve Eighth Amendment argument that he received a disproportionate sentence); Teixeira v. State, 89 S.W.3d 190, 192 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. ref’d) (stating the defendant failed to preserve error that the trial court arbitrarily refused to consider the entire range of

2010App. 2006) (explaining that a defendant must object when he has “notice that the proceedings may have gone amiss,” and he has this notice when he learns that the State is seeking a higher penalty despite the enhancement allegations not being read to the jury, and a defendant learns that the State is seeking a higher penalty when enhancement allegations are contained in the indictment); Warren , 693 S.W.2d at 416 (explaining that the error of failing to read and plead to enhancement allegations “can be preserved by means of a motion for new trial, bill of exception, or motion to arrest judgment