Amber Lovill, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

The court held that Lovill forfeited her selective-prosecution complaint because her statements at the revocation hearing did not specifically identify a constitutional challenge to the initiation of the proceedings and were not timely. Raising the claim for the first time in a motion for new trial did not satisfy the preservation rule because the factual basis was apparent during the revocation hearing. The court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the denial of habeas relief. Johnson, J., joined by Womack and Cochran, concurring, agreed with the judgment but would have concluded that the pregnancy was incidental to, rather than the cause of, the revocation proceedings.