Rogelio Mujica v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 9, 2025
• Docket: 04-24-00402-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00402-CR

Rogelio MUJICA, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CR5440 Honorable Joel Perez, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 9, 2025

AFFIRMED

A jury found appellant Rogelio Mujica guilty of murder, and the trial court sentenced

Mujica to life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed court costs of $290. In

one appellate issue, Mujica argues that the trial court erred by failing to inquire on the record about

his ability to pay the imposed court costs. We affirm. 04-24-00402-CR

BACKGROUND

On June 2, 2022, a grand jury indicted Mujica on one count of murder. A jury found Mujica

guilty, and the trial court sentenced Mujica to life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and

assessed court costs of $290.

In one appellate issue, Mujica contends he is entitled to a new punishment hearing because

the trial court failed to inquire on the record about his ability to pay court costs. 1 The State did not

file a brief.

DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO PAY

Applicable Law and Analysis

Article 42.15(a-1) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, commonly referred to as the

“ability to pay statute,” states, in relevant part:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, during or immediately after imposing a sentence in a case in which the defendant entered a plea in open court as provided by Article 27.13, 27.14(a), or 27.16(a), 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). The “on the record” language “was added by amendment

effective September 1, 2021.” Sloan v. State, 676 S.W.3d 240, 241 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2023, no

pet.); see Act of May 8, 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., ch. 106, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2021 (codified as TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.15(a-1)).

Here, the record lacks any indication that the trial court inquired on the record into Mujica’s

ability to pay court costs. Because the record likewise does not contain any indication that Mujica

1 Appellant frames the issue in his brief as follows: “Whether the trial court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire at sentencing about the Appellant’s ability to pay court costs and restitution.” However, appellant failed to include any argument supported by authority addressing the restitution portion of his issue presented. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Hall v. State, 663 S.W.3d 15, 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). Accordingly, we will only address court costs.

-2- 04-24-00402-CR

preserved his complaint through the proper methods, we must determine whether Mujica was

required to preserve this error for our review.

Error preservation is a fundamental tenant of our judicial system. See Garcia v. State, 663

S.W.3d 92, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (“Preservation requirements ensure that the judicial system

is not burdened by costly appeals and time-consuming retrials.”). Error preservation is split into

three categories: “(1) absolute requirements and prohibitions, (2) rights that must be implemented

unless expressly waived, and (3) rights that are implemented upon request or else forfeited.” Cruz

v. State, 698 S.W.3d 265, 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024) (citation omitted); see also Proenza v. State,

541 S.W.3d 786, 796 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (“[T]he question of error preservation turns not upon

the circumstances under which an error was raised, but upon the nature of the error itself.”)

(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Most rights fall within category three—i.e.,

they are forfeitable—notwithstanding that the same rights “may be constitutionally guaranteed,

necessary to ensure a fair and accurate trial, and/or lead to dismissal of charges[.]” Cruz, 698

S.W.3d at 268. In Cruz, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the ability-to-pay inquiry

is not fundamental and, thus, forfeitable. See id.

In this court, appellant does not challenge the basis for calculating the court costs. See

Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Rather, appellant challenges the

trial court’s failure to hold a hearing to determine whether he could pay the imposed court costs.

The record includes the oral pronouncement of Mujica’s sentence; however, the record does not

show Mujica was orally advised of the implementation of the court costs. Rios v. State, 683 S.W.3d

521, 524 (Tex. App.—Waco 2023, no pet.) (“Court costs are not required to be orally pronounced

at sentencing as they are not punitive like fines or restitution and do ‘not alter the range of

punishment to which the defendant is subject, or the number of years assessed.’”) (quoting Weir

-3- 04-24-00402-CR

v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)). Although the record does not indicate the

trial court inquired into Mujica’s ability to satisfy this obligation, Mujica did not, as he concedes

in his brief, object or otherwise challenge the trial court’s failure to conduct the inquiry after

learning of the imposed court costs. We note the trial court retains jurisdiction indefinitely to

address and determine court costs in an inability to pay inquiry, and appellant may raise this issue

in the trial court at any time. See Cruz, 698 S.W.3d at 269 (“The defendant need only tell the court

of his hardship; and he may do so in person or by motion, letter, or ‘any other method established

by the court for that purpose.’”) (quoting TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 43.035(b)). Accordingly, we

hold that Mujica did not preserve this issue for our review and overrule his sole appellate issue.

CONCLUSION

We overrule Mujica’s single appellate issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

-4-