preserve error in Texas

2025Reynolds v. State, 423 S.W.3d 377, 383 (Tex. Crim.

2025Reynolds v. State, 423 S.W.3d 377, 383 (Tex. Crim.

2019Curry, 910 S.W.2d at 496 ; see Flores v. State, 245 S.W.3d 432 , 437 n.14 (Tex. Crim.

2016Curry, 910 S.W.2d at 496 ; see Flores v. State, 245 S.W.3d 432 , 437 n.14 (Tex. Crim.

2019Curry, 910 S.W.2d at 496 ; see Flores v. State, 245 S.W.3d 432 , 437 n.14 (Tex. Crim.

2008Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 496 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (stating that the constitutionality of a statute as applied must be raised in the trial court to preserve error). 2 Third, the Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized that often an adequate record is not available for an appellant to properly raise a claim of ineffective assistance via a motion for new trial.

2023Gonzalez v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640 , 643- 46 (Tex. Crim.

2022Gonzalez v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640 , 643- 46 (Tex. Crim.

2025See Seim v. Allstate Tex. Lloyds, 551 S.W.3d 161, 166 (Tex. 2018).

2020She thus failed to preserve her complaints for appeal.5 See Seim, 551 S.W.3d at 162–63, 166 (concluding that lack of notary’s signature was a formal defect that had to be objected to and ruled on by the trial court to preserve error); Mansions in the Forest, 365 S.W.3d at 317 (holding that because record lacked any indication that purported affidavit was sworn to by the 5 To the extent that Grady’s challenge to the Loll affidavit can be construed as raising an independent argument that the exhibits attached to the affidavit were not properly authenticated as business records, that objection al

2024P. 33.1(a) (requiring an objection and ruling in the trial court to preserve an issue for appeal); see also In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707, 710-11 (Tex. 2003) (parent asserting a due process violation in a termination case must raise the constitutional claim in the trial court to preserve error).

2022P. 33.1(a) (requiring an objection and ruling in the trial court to preserve an issue for appeal); see also In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707, 710-11 (Tex. 2003) (parent asserting a due process violation in a termination case must raise the constitutional claim in the trial court to preserve error).

2008See Robinson v. State, 16 S.W.3d 808, 810-811 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).

2007See Robinson v. State, 16 S.W.3d 808, 810-811 (Tex. Crim.

2011In Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1990), the Texas Supreme Court held that although the defendant filed a motion for new trial that did not complain of the defective service, he could properly raise the issue on appeal. 3 Defective service can be raised for the first time on appeal.

2011In Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1990), the Texas Supreme Court held that although the defendant filed a motion for new trial that did not complain of the defective service, he could properly raise the issue on appeal. [3] Defective service can be raised for the first time on appeal.

2003App. P. 33.1(a) (providing a complaint must generally be made by a timely request, objection, or motion to the trial court to preserve error for appellate review); Saldano , 70 S.W.3d at 886–87 (stating that even constitutional complaints may be waived by failure to timely assert them in the trial court); Ieppert v. State , 908 S.W.2d 217, 219 (Tex. Crim .

2003P. 83.1(a) (providing a complaint must generally be made by a timely request, objection, or motion to the trial court to preserve error for appellate review); Saldano, 70 S.W.3d at 886-87 (stating that even constitutional complaints may be waived by failure to timely assert them in the trial *435 court); Ieppert v. State, 908 S.W.2d 217, 219 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (stating that even due process rights are usually forfeitable by inaction); Rogers, 640 S.W.2d at 264 (holding, in second opinion on rehearing, that procedural due process complaints are subject to waiver under ordinary preservation-of-

2026Id. (citing Crocker v. State, 441 S.W.3d 306 , 311–12 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d) (quoting Guevara v. State, 985 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d))); see also Romero v. State, No. 05-23-00689-CR, 2025 WL 992710 , at *8 (Tex. App.— Dallas Apr. 2, 2025, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that a speedy trial complaint was not preserved where a speedy trial motion was filed, but it was never heard; and the record did not reflect that the motion was ever ruled on or even that a ruling was sought).

2024Crocker v. State, 441 S.W.3d 306, 311-12 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d) (quoting Guevara v. State, 985 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d)).

2015See Woodall v. State, 350 S.W.3d 691, 695 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2011, no pet.) (“No objection was made by Appellant’s counsel that the trial court erred in any way by personally questioning prospective jurors.

2015See Woodall v. State, 350 S.W.3d 691, 695 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2011, no pet.) (“No objection was made by Appellant’s counsel that the trial court erred in any way by personally questioning prospective jurors.

2003App. 1995) (stating that even due process rights are usually forfeitable by inaction); Rogers , 640 S.W.2d at 264 (holding, in second opinion on rehearing, that procedural due process complaints are subject to waiver under ordinary preservation-of-error rules); McCarroll v. Texas Dept.

2003P. 83.1(a) (providing a complaint must generally be made by a timely request, objection, or motion to the trial court to preserve error for appellate review); Saldano, 70 S.W.3d at 886-87 (stating that even constitutional complaints may be waived by failure to timely assert them in the trial *435 court); Ieppert v. State, 908 S.W.2d 217, 219 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (stating that even due process rights are usually forfeitable by inaction); Rogers, 640 S.W.2d at 264 (holding, in second opinion on rehearing, that procedural due process complaints are subject to waiver under ordinary preservation-of-

2025Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 , 388–89 (Tex. Crim.

2025Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 , 388–89 (Tex. Crim.

2003P. 83.1(a) (providing a complaint must generally be made by a timely request, objection, or motion to the trial court to preserve error for appellate review); Saldano, 70 S.W.3d at 886-87 (stating that even constitutional complaints may be waived by failure to timely assert them in the trial *435 court); Ieppert v. State, 908 S.W.2d 217, 219 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (stating that even due process rights are usually forfeitable by inaction); Rogers, 640 S.W.2d at 264 (holding, in second opinion on rehearing, that procedural due process complaints are subject to waiver under ordinary preservation-of-

2003App. P. 33.1(a) (providing a complaint generally must be made by a timely request, objection, or motion to the trial court to preserve error for appellate review); Saldano v. State , 70 S.W.3d 873, 886 B 87 (Tex. Crim .

2026Id. (citing Crocker v. State, 441 S.W.3d 306 , 311–12 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d) (quoting Guevara v. State, 985 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d))); see also Romero v. State, No. 05-23-00689-CR, 2025 WL 992710 , at *8 (Tex. App.— Dallas Apr. 2, 2025, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that a speedy trial complaint was not preserved where a speedy trial motion was filed, but it was never heard; and the record did not reflect that the motion was ever ruled on or even that a ruling was sought).

2024Crocker v. State, 441 S.W.3d 306, 311-12 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d) (quoting Guevara v. State, 985 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d)).

2022In Mansions in the Forest, L.P. v. Montgomery County, the court determined that an objection asserting that a purported affidavit lacked a jurat and was thus unsworn, was a defect of form and required an objection and a ruling in the trial court to preserve error for appellate review. 365 S.W.3d 314 , 317–18 (Tex. 2012).

2020She thus failed to preserve her complaints for appeal.5 See Seim, 551 S.W.3d at 162–63, 166 (concluding that lack of notary’s signature was a formal defect that had to be objected to and ruled on by the trial court to preserve error); Mansions in the Forest, 365 S.W.3d at 317 (holding that because record lacked any indication that purported affidavit was sworn to by the 5 To the extent that Grady’s challenge to the Loll affidavit can be construed as raising an independent argument that the exhibits attached to the affidavit were not properly authenticated as business records, that objection al

2003McGowan v. State, 938 S.W.2d 732, 741-42 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996), aff'd on other grounds sub nom., Weightman v. State, 976 S.W.2d 621 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).

2003McGowan v. State, 938 S.W.2d 732, 741-42 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996), aff'd on other grounds sub nom., Weightman v. State, 975 S.W.2d 621 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).

2024T.D. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 683 S.W.3d 901 , 910 (Tex. App.—Austin 2024, no pet. h.); In re L.N.C., 573 S.W.3d 309, 327 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. denied). 14 This is because “[t]he preservation rules themselves satisfy due process.” T.D., 683 S.W.3d at 910; see also In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 353 (Tex. 2003) (“In termination cases, judicial economy is not just a policy—it is a statutory mandate. . . .

2024See Coastal Transp., 136 S.W.3d at 233 .

2024See Sparks, 809 S.W.2d at 774 .

2024T.D. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 683 S.W.3d 901 , 910 (Tex. App.—Austin 2024, no pet. h.); In re L.N.C., 573 S.W.3d 309, 327 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. denied). 14 This is because “[t]he preservation rules themselves satisfy due process.” T.D., 683 S.W.3d at 910; see also In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 353 (Tex. 2003) (“In termination cases, judicial economy is not just a policy—it is a statutory mandate. . . .

2023Owners Ass’n, 410 S.W.3d 397, 407 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (holding complaints on appeal must comport with the objections made in the trial court to preserve error).

2023Because Harrell did not raise this issue in the trial court and preserve error for appeal, the issue is waived.2 See id.; Lenk, 361 S.W.3d at 604 ; see also In re Interest of A.S.M., 1 See Peeler v. Hughes & Luce, 909 S.W.2d 494 , 497–98 (Tex. 1995) (convicted criminal defendant cannot sue representing attorney for legal malpractice without first establishing defendant has been exonerated because otherwise defendant’s own conduct is sole cause of indictment and conviction). 2 While we cannot decide an issue that is not properly presented to us for review, we note that both Rule 91a and Chapter

2022See In re N.T., 335 S.W.3d 660, 670 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.) (party’s argument on appeal must comport with party’s argument in the trial court to preserve error).