Burg, James Allan Ii, 592 S.W.3d 444

Trooper stopped James Burg for failing to dim high beams, suspected DWI; Burg refused an officer’s request for a blood specimen; trooper issued 180‑day administrative (ALR) suspension and temporary permit.
Officer obtained a warrant; blood test showed BAC 0.212. Burg was convicted of DWI (BAC ≥ 0.15).
Jury assessed one year confinement but recommended community supervision; trial court placed Burg on 18 months’ community supervision, a $1,500 fine, court costs, and ordered a one‑year driver’s license suspension to run concurrent with the ALR.
Defense did not object to the license suspension at sentencing; the written community‑supervision conditions (Article 42.12 §13) did not include a license suspension.
On appeal Burg argued the trial court lacked statutory authority to suspend a first‑time offender’s license while placing him on community supervision (relying on Love). The State argued the complaint was forfeited for failure to object (citing Speth) and later characterized the suspension as a collateral consequence.
The Court of Criminal Appeals held a license suspension is not punishment and thus is not part of an "illegal sentence" exception to preservation; because Burg had an opportunity to object and did not, the claim was forfeited and the conviction was affirmed.

Issue	Burg's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a court‑ordered driver’s license suspension imposed at sentencing is part of the criminal "sentence" such that it may be challenged for the first time on appeal as an "illegal sentence."	The suspension was "included in the sentence" and thus outside the legislatively mandated penalties; an unauthorized sentence may be raised for the first time on appeal.	The suspension is a collateral consequence/civil penalty, not punishment; it is not part of an illegal sentence and is forfeitable if not objected to.	Held: A license suspension is not punishment and not part of an "illegal sentence," so the Mizell rule does not apply. Rule 33.1 contemporaneous‑objection rules govern.
Whether Burg preserved his complaint about the license suspension.	Because the suspension rendered the sentence unauthorized, no contemporaneous objection was required to preserve the claim.	Burg had the opportunity to object at sentencing; failing to object forfeited appellate review.	Held: Burg forfeited the complaint by not objecting; issue not preserved.

Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (sentence outside statutory range is illegal and may be raised for the first time on appeal).
Davison v. State, 313 S.W.2d 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 1958) (automatic driver’s‑license suspension is not part of criminal "punishment").
State v. Ross, 953 S.W.2d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (sentence consists of the punishment terms in the judgment; collateral aspects of the judgment are outside the sentence).
Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (failure to object in trial court forfeits complaint about a condition of community supervision).
Idowu v. State, 73 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (complaints about restitution appropriateness must be raised in the trial court).
Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997) (legislative designation of civil penalty generally controls unless clearest proof shows punitive effect to transform it into criminal punishment).