He did not speak before sentencing, and did not object after the trial court sentenced him. See id.; Vasquez, 605 S.W.3d at 739-40 (holding that the allocution issue was unpreserved and that even if the appellate court found error, appellant was not harmed because "the right to allocution is not a constitutional right"); see also Gay v. State, No. 13-16-00158-CR, 2017 WL 2705446, at *2 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 22, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding appellant waived error where he did not object or request a further opportunity to address the trial court in mitigation of his sentence).

Neither Casas nor his defense counsel conveyed to the trial court that Casas wished to exercise his statutory or common-law right of allocution prior to the trial court's pronouncement of sentencing, and Casas did not object after the trial court sentenced him. See id.; Vasquez, 605 S.W.3d at 739-40 (concluding that the allocution issue was unpreserved and even if the reviewing court were to find error, appellant was not harmed because "the right to allocution is not a constitutional right"); see also Gay v. State, No. 13-16-00158-CR, 2017 WL 2705446, at *2 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 22, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding appellant "has not preserved any issue for appellate review" where "appellant made no objection and did not request any further opportunity to address the trial court in mitigation of his sentence" and observing the same constitutional limitations).

Here, Garcia did not object when the trial court pronounced his sentence, nor did he or his counsel convey to the trial court that Garcia wished to be allowed to exercise his alleged common-law right of allocution or an objection that the trial court was violating this alleged right. See Tenon v. State, 563 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (overruling issue raising violation of article 42.07 where "[t]here were no objections to the court's failure to inquire of the appellant if she had anything to say why the sentence should not be pronounced against her"); see also Gay v. State, No. 13-16-00158-CR, 2017 WL 2705446, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 22, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Having failed to preserve this alleged error, we overrule Garcia's second issue.

Appellant has failed to establish that the trial court's failure to provide appellant with the right of allocution was anything other than an oversight on the part of the trial court. See, e.g., Tenon v. State, 563 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Hall v. State, No. 05-18-00442-CR, 2019 WL 3955772, at *2 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 22, 2019, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Speights v. State, No. 06-19-00019-CR, 2019 WL 3417362, at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana July 30, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Gay v. State, No. 13-16-00158-CR, 2017 WL 2705446, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburgh June 22, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Gallegos-Perez v. State, No. 05-16-00015-CR, 2016 WL 6519113, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 1, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Norton v. State, 434 S.W.3d 767, 771 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.); Jarvis v. State, 353 S.W.3d 253, 254 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet. ref'd); Eisen v. State, 40 S.W.3d 628, 637 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. ref'd.); Nicholson v. State, 738 S.W.2d 59, 63 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.); Miles v. State, 688 S.W.2d 219, 227 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1985, pet. ref'd); Hernandez v. State, 628 S.W.2d 145, 147 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1982, no pet.).

Ybarra did not object at the sentencing hearing that he was denied either his common law or statutory right to allocution, and therefore, he failed to preserve error. See Eisen, 40 S.W.3d at 637 (holding that "court's failure to follow article 42.07 was not preserved for our review" where the "issue [was raised] for the first time on appeal"); see also Gay v. State, No. 13-16-00158-CR, 2017 WL 2705446, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 22, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Russell v. State, Nos. 13-14-00018-CR and 13-14-00019-CR, 2015 WL 4593728, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg July 30, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Further, to the extent that Ybarra raised the issue in his post-sentencing motion, the argument was untimely and does not satisfy the preservation requirements of Rule 33.1.See TEX. R. APP.