In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-23-00139-CR No. 07-23-00140-CR OSCAR REYES LUNA, JR., APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 320th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 081610-D-CR & 081927-D-CR, Honorable Steven Denny, Presiding June 3, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

In April 2022, Appellant, Oscar Reyes Luna, Jr., pleaded guilty to assault family violence in trial court cause number 081610-D-CR and to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in trial court cause number 081927-D-CR and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years.1 Eight months later, the State moved to proceed with adjudication in both cases for alleged violations of the conditions of

BACKGROUND

Appellant does not challenge his convictions. Thus, only the facts necessary to resolve his issue will be addressed.

The record does not reflect the trial court held an on-the-record inquiry on Appellant’s ability to pay costs. Neither was there a waiver by Appellant to have such an inquiry. The clerk’s records, however, contain an Article 42.15 Addendum in which the trial court made the following findings:

The defendant does not presently have sufficient resources or income to immediately pay all or part of the fine and costs but will, in the future, have the ability to pay the fine and costs at a later date or at designated intervals.

The defendant shall pay all of the fine and costs to District Clerk/County Clerk or its designee upon release on parole or completion of his/her sentence. If the defendant is unable to pay all of the fines and costs upon release, the defendant shall, upon release, appear before the District Clerk/County Clerk or its designee and make arrangements to pay the fine and costs at designated intervals.

The Bills of Cost show Appellant was assessed $425 in costs and fees in trial court cause number 081610-D-CR, and $1,025 in costs and fees in trial court cause number 081927- D-CR.

APPLICABLE LAW

Article 42.15(a-1) regarding fines and costs, amended in 2021,2 provides as follows:

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 . . . 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. If the court determines that the defendant does not have sufficient resources or income to immediately pay all or part of the fine and costs, the court shall determine whether the fine and costs should be: (1) subject to Subsection (c), required to be paid at some later date or in a specified portion at designated intervals; (2) discharged by performing community service . . . (3) waived in full or in part under Article 43.091 or 45.0491; or (4) satisfied through any combination of methods under Subdivisions (1) – (3).

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.15(a-1) (Emphasis added). Section 42.15(a-2), added in 2023,3 provides that a defendant may waive the on-the-record inquiry.

ANALYSIS

Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an on- the-record inquiry into his ability to pay court costs and fees assessed in the Bills of Cost and seeks a remand for the trial court to do so.4 We disagree.

In Stanberry v. State, No. 07-23-00194-CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 1066, at *6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 9, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication), this Court held a trial court’s determination that a defendant is not required to immediately pay costs but may do so at some later date, satisfies the directive in article 42.15(a-1) making a remand for an on-the-record inquiry a waste of judicial resources. Appellant criticizes Stanberry as “miss[ing] the explicit significance of the amended language.” He also rebukes Stanberry’s reliance on Sloan v. State, 676 S.W.3d 240, 242 (Tex. App.— Tyler 2023, no pet.), which Appellant describes as a “deeply flawed” decision.

Appellant notes that article 42.15(a-1) was added by the Legislature in 2017 and amended in 2021 by adding three words— “on the record.” He observes the Legislature “will not do a useless thing” and posits the 2021 amendment is rendered meaningless if trial courts are not required to make an on-the-record inquiry before determining a defendant’s ability to pay.5 He thoroughly reviews the legislative history including the 2023 addition of subsection 42.15(a-2) which provides that a defendant may waive the

Under the principles of statutory construction, Appellant contends this Court should accept the plain language of the statute and remand for a mandatory on-the-record inquiry. He argues there is no evidence to support the trial court’s findings in the Article 42.15 Addendum.

While Appellant presents well-reasoned arguments, this Court has issued several decisions post-Stanberry and arrived at the same conclusion. See Sparks v. State, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 2574, at *7 (Tex. App.—Amarillo April 12, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Mayo v. State, __ S.W.3d __, No. 07-23-00243-CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 2396, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo April 4, 2024, no pet. h.) (op. on reh’g).

In adhering to the doctrine of horizontal stare decisis,7 we again conclude the trial court’s findings in each case that Appellant did not presently have sufficient resources to immediately pay costs but will in the future satisfy the directive in article 42.15(a-1). Until

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgments reflecting costs “As Per Attached Bill of Costs” are affirmed.

Alex Yarbrough Justice Do not publish.