Joshua Walker v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00193-CR

JOSHUA WALKER, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 364th District Court
Lubbock County, Texas
Trial Court No. DC-2022-CR-0056, Honorable William R. Eichman II, Presiding

December 17, 2025
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant pleaded guilty to murder and, following a trial on punishment, was

sentenced to eighty years imprisonment. Via its judgment, the trial court ordered that

“[u]pon release from confinement, . . . Defendant . . . proceed without unnecessary delay

to the District Clerk’s office, or any other office designated by the Court or the Court’s

designee, to pay or to make arrangements to pay any fine, court costs, and restitution

due.” So too were $290.00 in court costs and $55.00 in reimbursement fees imposed by

the court through its judgment. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to
conduct an ability-to-pay inquiry on the record and asks that we remand the cause to the

trial court to conduct said inquiry. We affirm.

Discussion

During or immediately after imposing sentence, “a court shall inquire on the record

whether the defendant has sufficient resources or income to immediately pay all or part

of the fine and costs.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.15(a-1); see Stanberry v. State, No.

07-23-00194-CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 1066, at *5 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 9, 2024,

pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“Article 42.15(a-1), as amended in

2021, requires that the inquiry into a defendant’s ability to immediately pay be held on the

record.”). Here, it does not appear that the trial court made the requisite inquiry on the

record.

However, also missing from the record is any objection from appellant to the trial

court’s failure to make said inquiry on the record. The Article 42.15(a-1) inquiry is not

fundamental to the adjudicatory process; so, it is a right forfeitable by such failure. See

Cruz v. State, 698 S.W.3d 265, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024). By failing to object here,

appellant forfeited his right to the inquiry. See Drew v. State, No. 07-25-00079-CR, 2025

Tex. App. LEXIS 6536, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 22, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication); Sikalasinh v. State, No. 07-24-00018-CR, 2024 Tex. App.

LEXIS 7603, at *11 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 24, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication).

2
We deny appellant’s request for remand to conduct the hearing under Article

42.15(a-1) and overrule his sole issue on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s judgment of

conviction.

Brian Quinn
Chief Justice

Do not publish.

3