failure to preserve error in Texas

2015Id. at 769 .

2015In re S.R.M,, 601 S.W.2d at 768-69. errors because of the failure to preserve error--violated However, the trial court rendered ajudgment terminating their due process rights, See Daniels, 474 U.S. at 340-41, the mother's parental rights based on grounds not 106 S.Ct. 662 (Stevens, J., concurring) (explaining that pleaded.

2003Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex.2001) (concerning improper judicial comments and rejecting the complaint because the appellant failed to explain how any comments made were incurable or excused the failure to preserve error).

2003Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis , 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. 2001) (concerning improper judicial comments and rejecting the complaint because the appellant failed to explain how any comments made were incurable or excused the failure to preserve error).

2023See id. (stating, “Nor may a defendant charged with gross negligence in the entrustment of a vehicle preclude proof thereof by 10 stipulating agency on the part of the person to whom such vehicle is entrusted.”).

2021See id. (stating, “Nor may a defendant charged with gross negligence in the entrustment of a vehicle preclude proof thereof by stipulating agency on the part of the person to whom such vehicle is entrusted.”).

2019See Bennett, 415 S.W.3d at 868–69; Enard, 513 S.W.3d at 216 ; see also Perez v. State, No. 07- 12-00432-CR, 2013 WL 6908955 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 18, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (relying on Bennett and holding trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to object to constitutionality of statute because it was unsettled legal issue).

2016See id. at 868-69 .

2017Warner v. State, 245 S.W.3d 458, 461 (Tex. Crim.

2009Warner v. State , 245 S.W.3d 458, 461 (Tex. Crim.

2016See Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex. Crim.

2014See Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex. Crim.

2015See In re Commitment of Stuteville, No. 01-13-00921-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2243, at **33-34 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 10, 2015, pet. filed) (mem. op.).

2015See In re Stuteville, No. 01- 13-00921-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2243, at **33-34 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 10, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). 5 The record shows that Williams failed to object to the comments during voir dire or during the trial and that he failed to ask for any instructions to mitigate the impression he claims the trial court’s comments gave the jury.

2015Id. 10 Fort Worth 1997, no pet.) (citing Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555, 557, 560 (Tex. Crim.

2015Id. 10 Fort Worth 1997, no pet.) (citing Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555, 557, 560 (Tex. Crim.

2012See id. at 63-64 .

2012See id. at 63-64 .

2011Alexander v. State, 282 S.W.3d 701, 705 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. ref'd).

2011Alexander v. State , 282 S.W.3d 701, 705 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d).

2004See Williamson v. State , 771 S.W.2d 601, 608 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, pet. ref'd).

2004Id. at 608–09.

2003Evid. 103(d) ("In a criminal case, nothing in these rules precludes taking notice of fundamental errors affecting substantive rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court."); see C.O.S., 988 S.W.2d at 765-67 (describing certain substantive rights that criminal defendants cannot forfeit by the failure to preserve error in the trial court) (citing Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 278-79 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (en banc)).

2003Evid. 103(d) (“In a criminal case, nothing in these rules precludes taking notice of fundamental errors affecting substantive rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”); see C.O.S., 988 S.W.2d at 765-67 (describing certain substantive rights that criminal defendants cannot forfeit by the failure to preserve error in the trial court) (citing Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 278-79 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (en banc)).

2003Evid. 103(d) ("In a criminal case, nothing in these rules precludes taking notice of fundamental errors affecting substantive rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court."); see C.O.S., 988 S.W.2d at 765-67 (describing certain substantive rights that criminal defendants cannot forfeit by the failure to preserve error in the trial court) (citing Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 278-79 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (en banc)).

2003Evid. 103(d) (“In a criminal case, nothing in these rules precludes taking notice of fundamental errors affecting substantive rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”); see C.O.S., 988 S.W.2d at 765-67 (describing certain substantive rights that criminal defendants cannot forfeit by the failure to preserve error in the trial court) (citing Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 278-79 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (en banc)).

2025See Sneddeker v. Vita 10 IV Therapy, LLC, No. 02-24-00316-CV, 2025 WL 1141878 , at *11 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth April 17, 2025, no pet.) (holding that objection to a final judgment that denied relief that had been previously granted in a partial summary judgment order lacking decretal language was not preserved where the issue was not raised in the trial court); see also Stamos v. Houston ISD, No. 14-18-00340-CV, 2020 WL 1528047 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] March 31, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that failure to object in the trial court to dismissal with prejudice, versus without

2024Co., 148 S.W.3d 109, 121 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (“While it is certainly the better practice to present all arguments to a court of appeals before seeking mandamus in this Court, the failure to do so is not a failure to preserve error as it ordinarily would be in an appeal.”).

2023This is because the “complete failure to authenticate the exhibits renders the evidence incompetent and amounts to a substantive defect that is not waived by the failure to preserve error in the trial court.” Brown v. Tarbert, 10 (USA), N.A., 570 S.W.3d 364 , 369–70 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, pet. denied); see also Guerrero, 465 S.W.3d at 706–07 (“[a] complete absence of authentication is a defect of substance that is not waived by a party failing to object and may be urged for the first time on appeal”); Perkins v. Crittenden, 462 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Tex. 1970) (reversing summary judgment because

2023This is because the “complete failure to authenticate the exhibits renders the evidence incompetent and amounts to a substantive defect that is not waived by the failure to preserve error in the trial court.” Brown v. Tarbert, 10 (USA), N.A., 570 S.W.3d 364 , 369–70 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, pet. denied); see also Guerrero, 465 S.W.3d at 706–07 (“[a] complete absence of authentication is a defect of substance that is not waived by a party failing to object and may be urged for the first time on appeal”); Perkins v. Crittenden, 462 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Tex. 1970) (reversing summary judgment because

2023This is because the “complete failure to authenticate the exhibits renders the evidence incompetent and amounts to a substantive defect that is not waived by the failure to preserve error in the trial court.” Brown v. Tarbert, 10 (USA), N.A., 570 S.W.3d 364 , 369–70 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, pet. denied); see also Guerrero, 465 S.W.3d at 706–07 (“[a] complete absence of authentication is a defect of substance that is not waived by a party failing to object and may be urged for the first time on appeal”); Perkins v. Crittenden, 462 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Tex. 1970) (reversing summary judgment because

2018In an attempt to overcome the failure to preserve error, Vernon primarily relies on Rogers v. State, in which this court acknowledged that the rules of error-preservation may not strictly apply in a case of “serious and continuing prosecutorial misconduct that undermines the reliability of the factfinding process or, even worse, transforms the trial into a farce and mockery of justice . . . resulting in deprivation of fundamental fairness and due process of law.” 725 S.W.2d 350 , 15 360 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.) (citing Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 84, 88 , 55 S. C

2018In an attempt to overcome the failure to preserve error, Vernon primarily relies on Rogers v. State, in which this court acknowledged that the rules of error-preservation may not strictly apply in a case of “serious and continuing prosecutorial misconduct that undermines the reliability of the factfinding process or, even worse, transforms the trial into a farce and mockery of justice . . . resulting in deprivation of fundamental fairness and due process of law.” 725 S.W.2d 350 , 15 360 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.) (citing Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 84, 88 , 55 S. C

2018USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479, 520 (Tex. 2018).