## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00 310

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 372n d District Court Tarr ant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1386232W

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack 

### C HARLENE 

### B ALLARD 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. I NTRODUCTION Appellant C harlene Ballard appeals from the trial court ’ s judgment adj udicat i ng her guilty of burg

lary of a habitation and sentencing her to f our years ’ confinement

. In her sole point, she argues that h er sentence violates the Eight h Amendment
becau se it is grossly disproportionate to the underlying offense. Because w e conclude
that B allard failed to pr eserve this complaint and the refore for fe ited it, we affirm

. II. B ACKGRO U ND
T he State charged Ballard with burglary of a habitation. On October 9, 2014 , p ursuant to a plea

- bar gain agreement, Ballard pleaded guilty to that charge , and the
trial court fined her $500 and placed her on deferred

- ad j udication community

su p ervision for five years

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02

. The State subsequently filed a petition alle g

ing that Ballard had violated several conditions of her co mmunity supervision and asking the trial court to pr o c e ed with an adj udication o f Ballard ’ s guilt on the underlying charge. T he trial court h eld 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 th e State ’ s allega tions true, revoked Ballard ’ s comm uni ty3

supervision, and found her guilty of the under lying bu rgla ry charge. The trial court
sentenced her to four years ’ confinement. 1 Balla rd timely appea led

. III. D ISCUSSION
In her sole point , Ballard argues that her sentence of four years ’ confinement is grossly disproport

ionate to the burg

lary offense for which she was convicted and thus violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against crue l and unusual punishments.
See U.S . Const. a m end . VIII. In response, the State maintains that Ballard forfeit ed this complaint by failing to preserve it in the trial court. To preserve a complaint for our review , a pa rty must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific ground s, if not
apparen t from the context , for the desired ruling. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Thoma s v. Sta te , 505 S.W.3d 916, 924 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 201 6). Further, the party must obtain an express or implicit a dverse trial court ruling or obje ct to the trial court’s refusal t o rule. Tex. R. A pp. P. 33.1(a)(2); Everitt v. State , 407 S.W.3d 259, 262

– 63 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2013)

. With the exce ption of compl aints predicated upon the violation of the narrow categories of absolute or waivable

- only rig hts , a defendant forfeits a compl aint , even a const itutional complaint , if s he does not properly p reserve it. S ee State v. Dunbar

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

1 Ballard was charged with a second

- d egree

- felony count of burglar y , the punishment for which includes a term of confi nement ranging between two and twenty years
. See T ex. Pe nal Code Ann. §§ 12. 3 3(a), 30.02(c)(2).4

138 S.W.3d 334, 342 (Tex. Crim . App. 2004) ; see also Clark v. S tate , 365 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2 012 )

. Th e sole complaint Ballard raises here

— th at her sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because it is grossly dispr oportiona te to the offense for whi ch she was
convicted

—

is t he kind of complaint that is forf eited if not pre served. See Banis ter 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 t rial court the Eight h Amendment complaint she has asserted on appeal. Accordingly, she fail ed to preserve t hat complaint and consequently forfe ited it. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 (a); Banister , 551 S.W.3d at 769. We therefore over rule Ballard ’ s sole point.
IV. C ONCLUSION Having overruled Ballard ’ s sole point, we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment

. See
Tex. R. A pp. P. 43.2(a)

.
/ s/ Dana Womack
Da na Womack Justice
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered : January 30, 2020