appellant waived claim in Texas

2015Corp., No. 14- 12-00723-CV, 2014 WL 1673821 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 24, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (finding an appellant waived his challenge to the legal and factual sufficiency supporting the trial court’s finding by not providing any argument, analysis, or citations to the record or legal authority); San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (overruling an appellant’s issue as insufficiently argued where the appellant asserted only that there are additional grounds for reversal and that 4 I.

2015Corp., No. 14- 12-00723-CV, 2014 WL 1673821 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 24, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (finding an appellant waived his challenge to the legal and factual sufficiency supporting the trial court’s finding by not providing any argument, analysis, or citations to the record or legal authority); San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (overruling an appellant’s issue as insufficiently argued where the appellant asserted only that there are additional grounds for reversal and that 4 I.

2003Beal v. State, 35 S.W.3d 677, 682 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (holding that the appellant waived his claim of ineffective assistance by failing to accompany the allegations with citation to legal authority and explanation of his point); see Rocha v. State, 16 S.W.3d 1, 20 (Tex. Crim.

2003Beal v. State , 35 S.W.3d 677, 682 (Tex. App.–Houston [1 st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (holding that the appellant waived his claim of ineffective assistance by failing to accompany the allegations with citation to legal authority and explanation of his point); see Rocha v. State , 16 S.W.3d 1, 20 (Tex. Crim.

2003Beal v. State, 35 S.W.3d 677, 682 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (holding that the appellant waived his claim of ineffective assistance by failing to accompany the allegations with citation to legal authority and explanation of his point); see Rocha v. State, 16 S.W.3d 1, 20 (Tex. Crim.

2003Beal v. State , 35 S.W.3d 677, 682 (Tex. App.–Houston [1 st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (holding that the appellant waived his claim of ineffective assistance by failing to accompany the allegations with citation to legal authority and explanation of his point); see Rocha v. State , 16 S.W.3d 1, 20 (Tex. Crim.

2023In Hoang, the court of appeals held that the appellant waived error as to his complaint concerning a comment the trial court made in front of the jury and, in any event, the judge’s statement did not convey his opinion on the evidence, imply approval of the State’s argument, indicate disbelief in the defendant’s position, or diminish the credibility of the defendant’s case. 997 S.W.2d at 680, 684 .

2019App. 2016) (holding that the appellant waived any complaints regarding the trial court’s statements made during voir dire); Woodall v. State, 350 S.W.3d 691, 695 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, no pet.) (holding that the appellant waived error regarding the trial court’s personal questioning of prospective jurors who asserted that they would not be able to consider the full range of punishment).

2015See Burt, 396 S.W.3d at 577–78 (observing that an “appellant fails to preserve error by failing to object 5 when he had the opportunity”); see also Idowu v. State, 73 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Tex. Crim.

2015In re Ernst, No. 04-10-00319-CV, 2011 WL 192654 , at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 12, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); O’Farrill v. Gonzales, 974 S.W.2d 237, 249-50 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied).

2015See Burt, 396 S.W.3d at 577–78 (observing that an “appellant fails to preserve error by failing to object 5 when he had the opportunity”); see also Idowu v. State, 73 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Cook v. State, 902 S.W.2d 471 , object before trial.

2002App. 1991) (stating that the appellant, by not objecting on confrontation grounds until after out-of-court statement was admitted, appeared to have waived claim); Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d at 924 (holding that, by failing to object to object at trial, the appellant waived claim that admission of videotape violated right to confrontation); Thacker v. State, 999 S.W.2d 56, 61 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd) (holding that, by not objecting to hearsay testimony on Confrontation Clause grounds, defendant waived review of claim on appeal).

2002App. 1991) (stating that the appellant, by not objecting on confrontation grounds until after out-of-court statement was admitted, appeared to have waived claim); Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d at 924 (holding that, by failing to object to object at trial, the appellant waived claim that admission of videotape violated right to confrontation); Thacker v. State, 999 S.W.2d 56, 61 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd) (holding that, by not objecting to hearsay testimony on Confrontation Clause grounds, defendant waived review of claim on appeal).

1999The State and the dissent rely on Oestrick v. State, 939 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Tex.App.—Austin 1997, pet. ref'd), to support the proposition that the appellant waived a hearing because nothing indicates the appellant wanted to introduce evidence at the hearing, or that he was prevented from doing so.

1999The State and the dissent rely on Oestrick v. State, 939 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997, pet. ref'd), to support the proposition that the appellant waived a hearing because nothing indicates the appellant wanted to introduce evidence at the hearing, or that he was prevented from doing so.

1998See HBA East, Ltd. v. JEA Boxing Co., 796 S.W.2d 534, 538-39 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1218 , 111 S.Ct. 2828 , 115 L.Ed.2d 998 (1991) (holding that the appellant waived his claim that he was denied prior notice of the hearing on a motion for default judgment because the issue was not first presented to the trial court).

1998See HBA East, Ltd. v. JEA Boxing Co., 796 S.W.2d 534, 538-39 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1218 , 111 S.Ct. 2828 , 115 L.Ed.2d 998 (1991) (holding that the appellant waived his claim that he was denied prior notice of the hearing on a motion for default judgment because the issue was not first presented to the trial court).

1998See HBA East, Ltd. v. JEA Boxing Co., 796 S.W.2d 534, 538-39 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1218 , 111 S.Ct. 2828 , 115 L.Ed.2d 998 (1991) (holding that the appellant waived his claim that he was denied prior notice of the hearing on a motion for default judgment because the issue was not first presented to the trial court).

1996We can only speculate as to his motives in not attending, but it is reasonable to conclude that had he been there to testily La-tham might have been forced to confirm Mathis’s testimony. .The majority says that "[wjhere a party is justifiably unaware of the need to object, his failure to object should not be deemed waiver.” 935 S.W.2d at 793 (Chapa, C.J.) But in Union City Body Co. v. Ramirez, 911 S.W.2d 196, 201 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995, no writ) (Chapa, C.J.) this court held that the appellant waived error when its objection to a surprise severance order wasn't made until the morning follo

1988Crocker v. State, 573 S.W.2d 190, 201 (Tex.Crim.App.1978).