Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez, 189 S.W.3d 743, 753 (Tex. 2006); Montez v. State, No. 02-16-00175-CR, 2017 WL 2807395, at *6 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and this court have consistently and repeatedly applied rule 33.1(a)'s preservation requirements to jury arguments. See, e.g., Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274, 303 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1142 (2011); Archie v. State, 221 S.W.3d 695, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ("To preserve error[,] . . . a defendant must pursue to an adverse ruling his objections to jury argument."); Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) ("Appellant did not object to the prosecutor's argument and therefore failed to preserve error."); Isbell v. State, Nos. 02-14-00124-CR, 02-14-00125-CR, 2017 WL 3526339, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 17, 2017, no pet. h.) (mem. op. on remand and on reh'g, not designated for publication) ("Absent an objection to jury argument at trial, nothing is presented for review."); Montez v. State, No. 02-16-00175-CR, 2017 WL 2807395, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("Because Montez did not object to the State's argument regarding the effects of K-2, his complaint on appeal is forfeited."); Hopper v. State, 483 S.W.3d 235, 237 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. ref'd) ("Hopper did not object to the second argument and, therefore, forfeited any error arising from this argument by the prosecutor."). Indeed, this court and other intermediate courts have recognized that the preservation requirements apply even when the State's argument is egregious.