, a defendant must object each time an improper argument is made, or he forfeits his complaint, regardless of how egregious the argument." Morris v. State, No. 02-16-00171-CR, 2017 WL 2590569, at *5 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth June 15, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Va l d ez v. State, 2 S.W.3d 518, 521-22 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd)).
"[L]ike all complaints that are subject to preservation, a defendant must object each time an improper argument is made, or he forfeits his complaint, regardless of how egregious the argument." Morris v. State, No. 02-16-00171-CR, 2017 WL 2590569, at *5 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth June 15, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Valdez v. State, 2 S.W.3d 518, 521-22 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd)); see also Hopper v. State, 483 S.W.3d 235, 236-37 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2016, pet. ref'd) ("[Appellant] did not object to the second argument and, therefore, forfeited any errors arising from this argument by the prosecutor."); Polk v. State, No. 02-13-00556-CR, 2015 WL 1883014, at *11 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Apr. 23, 2015, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("To the extent that appellant complains on appeal about the State's repeated argument . . ., we [] conclude that appellant forfeited the complaint by failing to object to each occasion . . . that the State made that argument
Given that the prosecutor deliberately confined her argument in her second statement to the context of [appellant's] failure to provide a complete story during his conversation with law enforcement, there was no right-against-self-incrimination objection to be preserved. Morris v. State, No 02-16-00171-CR, 2017 WL 2590569, at *7 (Tex App-Fort Worth June 15, 2017, pet ref'd) (mem op, not designated for publication) (Sudderth, J, concurring).
Indeed, this court and other intermediate courts have recognized that the preservation requirements apply even when the State's argument is egregious. See Morris v. State, No. 02-16-00171-CR, 2017 WL 2590569, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 15, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("[L]ike all complaints that are subject to preservation, a defendant must object each time an improper argument is made, or he forfeits his complaint, regardless of how egregious the argument."); see also Cruz v. State, No. 08-14-00058-CR, 2016 WL 3194924, at *3 (Tex. App.—El Paso June 8, 2016, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication) ("[The preservation rule] applies even if the argument is egregious and an instruction to disregard would not have cured the harm caused by the improper argument."). Williams recognizes that rule 33.1(a)'s preservation requirement is a hurdle to his ability to pursue his complaints, but he relies on three cases to contend that we should depart from the general preservation rule in this appeal.