appellant waived any error in Texas

2015The intermediate appellate court had held that the appellant waived any error related to the trial court’s sustaining the State’s objections to some of his voir dire questions when, “at the end of voir dire, the trial court asked, ‘Does either side have an objection to the panel or as to the jury as selected?’ [and] [b]oth Appellant and the State responded, ‘No, Your Honor.’” Id. at 902–03 (quoting Stairhime v. State, 439 S.W.3d 499, 507 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014), rev’d, 463 S.W.3d 902 .

2015The intermediate appellate court had held that the appellant waived any error related to the trial court’s sustaining the State’s objections to some of his voir dire questions when, “at the end of voir dire, the trial court asked, ‘Does either side have an objection to the panel or as to the jury as selected?’ [and] [b]oth Appellant and the State responded, ‘No, Your Honor.’” Id. at 902–03 (quoting Stairhime v. State, 439 S.W.3d 499, 507 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014), rev’d, 463 S.W.3d 902 .

2009Co., 724 S.W.2d 383, 384 (Tex. 1987) (holding that a challenge on appeal to the apportionment of damages in a judgment was waived by failing to object to the judgment in the trial court); Dal-Chrome Co. v. Brenntag Sw., Inc., 183 S.W.3d 133, 145 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also Karenev v. Kareneva, No. 02-06-00269-CV, 2008 WL 755285 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 20, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that the appellant waived any error about the characterization of child support awards by failing to file a post-judgment 25 motion such as a motion for new trial or a motion to ame

2009Co. , 724 S.W.2d 383, 384 (Tex. 1987) (holding that a challenge on appeal to the apportionment of damages in a judgment was waived by failing to object to the judgment in the trial court); Dal-Chrome Co. v. Brenntag Sw., Inc. , 183 S.W.3d 133, 145 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also Karenev v. Kareneva , No. 02-06-00269-CV, 2008 WL 755285 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 20, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that the appellant waived any error about the characterization of child support awards by failing to file a post-judgment motion such as a motion for new trial or a motion to ame

2009Co., 724 S.W.2d 383, 384 (Tex. 1987) (holding that a challenge on appeal to the apportionment of damages in a judgment was waived by failing to object to the judgment in the trial court); Dal-Chrome Co. v. Brenntag Sw., Inc., 183 S.W.3d 133, 145 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also Karenev v. Kareneva, No. 02-06-00269-CV, 2008 WL 755285 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 20, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that the appellant waived any error about the characterization of child support awards by failing to file a post-judgment 25 motion such as a motion for new trial or a motion to ame

2009Co. , 724 S.W.2d 383, 384 (Tex. 1987) (holding that a challenge on appeal to the apportionment of damages in a judgment was waived by failing to object to the judgment in the trial court); Dal-Chrome Co. v. Brenntag Sw., Inc. , 183 S.W.3d 133, 145 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also Karenev v. Kareneva , No. 02-06-00269-CV, 2008 WL 755285 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 20, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that the appellant waived any error about the characterization of child support awards by failing to file a post-judgment motion such as a motion for new trial or a motion to ame

2024See Rodriguez v. State, 630 S.W.3d 522 , 524–25 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021, no pet.) (holding that the appellant waived his Article 39.14 complaint regarding a late- disclosed arrest warrant by failing to request a continuance); Ray v. State, No. 10-17- 00394-CR, 2018 WL 4926215 , *6 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 10, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that the appellant waived any violation of Article 39.14(h) by failing to request a continuance); see also Lindsey v. State, 635 S.W.2d 541, 544 (Tex. Crim.

2020In Higdon v. State, 764 S.W.2d 308, 310 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, pet. ref’d), the appellant waived any error in the trial court’s article 36.28 procedure at the time the transcript in question was offered to the jury.

2015“When a motion for new trial is presented to the trial court, the burden of ensuring that the hearing thereon is set for a date within the trial court's jurisdiction is properly placed on the party presenting the motion.” Crowell v. State, 949 S.W.2d 37, 38 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also Ryan v. State, 937 S.W.2d 93, 97 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1996, pet. ref’d) (holding it was incumbent upon the appellant to obtain a hearing prior to the 75-day deadline; noting that there was nothing in the record to indicate any efforts by the appellant to obtain a hearing prior to the deadline);

2015“When a motion for new trial is presented to the trial court, the burden of ensuring that the hearing thereon is set for a date within the trial court's jurisdiction is properly placed on the party presenting the motion.” Crowell v. State, 949 S.W.2d 37, 38 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also Ryan v. State, 937 S.W.2d 93, 97 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1996, pet. ref’d) (holding it was incumbent upon the appellant to obtain a hearing prior to the 75-day deadline; noting that there was nothing in the record to indicate any efforts by the appellant to obtain a hearing prior to the deadline);

2015“When a motion for new trial is presented to the trial court, the burden of ensuring that the hearing thereon is set for a date within the trial court's jurisdiction is properly placed on the party presenting the motion.” Crowell v. State, 949 S.W.2d 37, 38 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also Ryan v. State, 937 S.W.2d 93, 97 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1996, pet. ref’d) (holding it was incumbent upon the appellant to obtain a hearing prior to the 75-day deadline; noting that there was nothing in the record to indicate any efforts by the appellant to obtain a hearing prior to the deadline);

2015See Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim.

2013App. 1982) (op. on second reh’g) (noting waiver when trial counsel fails to object to procedural deficiencies regarding a second hearing addressing a probation revocation); Burns v. State, 835 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref’d) (holding that the appellant waived any error 1 While Jefferson cites Crockett v. State, 840 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.) as support for his argument, the defendant in Crockett preserved error by filing two motions to quash the amended motion to revoke.

2011See Prince, 137 S.W.3d at 888 (error waived where record did not contain ruling on motion to quash, the appellant waived any error).

2010Rodarte v. Investeco Group, L.L.C. , 299 S.W.3d 400, 412 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.); see Tex. R.

2010P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Bush v. State, 762 S.W.2d 353, 355 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1988, no pet.) (holding the appellant waived any error by failing to request an instruction to disregard the trial judge’s comment).

2008He cites Land v. AT & S Transp ., 947 S.W.2d 665, 666-67 (Tex. App.-Austin, 1997, no pet.), a sanctions case under Rule 13, which held that the appellant waived any error by failing to object to the form of the order or requesting more particularity in the order.

1999May v. State , 738 S.W.2d 261, 272 (Tex. Crim.

1998See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1)(A) (the record must show the complaint was made to the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the basis for the complaint); Collier v. State, 959 S.W.2d 621, 626 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); Rushing v. State, 962 S.W.2d 100 , 102 n. 2 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. refd).

1993Ex Parte Crispen, 777 S.W.2d 103, 105 (Tex.Crim.App.1989).

1993See Losada v. State, 721 S.W.2d 305, 313 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).