In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00310-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 372nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1386232W

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

CHARLENE BALLARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant Charlene Ballard appeals from the trial court’s judgment adjudicating 

her guilty of burglary of a habitation and sentencing her to four years’ confinement. 

In her sole point, she argues that her sentence violates the Eighth Amendment 

because it is grossly disproportionate to the underlying offense. Because we conclude 

that Ballard failed to preserve this complaint and therefore forfeited it, we affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

The State charged Ballard with burglary of a habitation. On October 9, 2014, 

pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Ballard pleaded guilty to that charge, and the 

trial court fined her $500 and placed her on deferred-adjudication community 

supervision for five years. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02. The State subsequently 

filed a petition alleging that Ballard had violated several conditions of her community 

supervision and asking the trial court to proceed with an adjudication of Ballard’s guilt 

on the underlying charge. The trial court held a hearing on the State’s petition, during 

which Ballard pleaded “true” to each of the violations alleged in the State’s petition. 

The trial court found each of the State’s allegations true, revoked Ballard’s community 
3

supervision, and found her guilty of the underlying burglary charge. The trial court 

sentenced her to four years’ confinement.1 Ballard timely appealed. 

III. DISCUSSION

In her sole point, Ballard argues that her sentence of four years’ confinement is 

grossly disproportionate to the burglary offense for which she was convicted and thus 

violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. 

See U.S. Const. amend. VIII. In response, the State maintains that Ballard forfeited 

this complaint by failing to preserve it in the trial court. 

To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have presented to the trial 

court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds, if not 

apparent from the context, for the desired ruling. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Thomas v. 

State, 505 S.W.3d 916, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Further, the party must obtain an 

express or implicit adverse trial court ruling or object to the trial court’s refusal to 

rule. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(2); Everitt v. State, 407 S.W.3d 259, 262–63 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2013). With the exception of complaints predicated upon the violation of the 

narrow categories of absolute or waivable-only rights, a defendant forfeits a 

complaint, even a constitutional complaint, if she does not properly preserve it. See 

State v. Dunbar, 297 S.W.3d 777, 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Mendez v. State, 

1Ballard was charged with a second-degree-felony count of burglary, the 

punishment for which includes a term of confinement ranging between two and

twenty years. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.33(a), 30.02(c)(2).
4

138 S.W.3d 334, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); see also Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 

339 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

The sole complaint Ballard raises here—that her sentence violates the Eighth 

Amendment because it is grossly disproportionate to the offense for which she was 

convicted—is the kind of complaint that is forfeited if not preserved. See Banister v. 

State, 551 S.W.3d 768, 769 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.). The record 

reflects that Ballard did not present to the trial court the Eighth Amendment 

complaint she has asserted on appeal. Accordingly, she failed to preserve that 

complaint and consequently forfeited it. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Banister, 

551 S.W.3d at 769. We therefore overrule Ballard’s sole point.

IV. CONCLUSION

Having overruled Ballard’s sole point, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a).

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: January 30, 2020