Crayton v. State, 03-24-00777-CR, March 20, 2026.
On appeal from the 26th District Court of Williamson County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Third Court of Appeals held that a trial court’s failure to conduct a mandatory “ability-to-pay” inquiry under Article 42.15(a-1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a forfeitable error that must be preserved by a timely objection at sentencing. Furthermore, the court determined that such an omission does not constitute reversible error because a defendant retains a statutory right to seek relief from court costs due to undue hardship at any time following the entry of judgment.
Relevance to Family Law
For the Texas family law practitioner, Crayton serves as a stark warning regarding the limits of “mandatory” statutory language in quasi-criminal enforcement proceedings. In the context of contempt for non-payment of child support or legal fees, the trial court is often governed by statutes that dictate what a court “shall” do regarding a contemnor’s financial resources. This opinion clarifies that even when a statute uses the word “shall,” the right to that specific judicial action may still be lost through silence. Litigators cannot rely on a trial court’s oversight to create an automatic “get out of jail free” card on appeal; the preservation of error rules remain the primary hurdle for any challenge to financial assessments or costs.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
John Edgar Crayton, Jr. was convicted by a jury of two counts of intoxication manslaughter and sentenced to 40 years in prison. During the sentencing phase, the trial court assessed court costs against him. Despite the clear directive in Article 42.15(a-1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure—which mandates that a court “shall inquire on the record” whether a defendant has the resources to pay costs immediately—the trial court failed to conduct any such inquiry. Crayton remained silent on the issue during the hearing, only requesting the appointment of appellate counsel. On appeal, Crayton argued that the judgment must be reversed because the mandatory financial inquiry never occurred.
Issues Decided
- Whether a defendant forfeits the right to challenge a trial court’s failure to conduct a mandatory ability-to-pay inquiry by failing to object during sentencing.
- Whether the absence of a mandatory ability-to-pay hearing constitutes reversible error when post-judgment remedies for financial hardship remain available.
Rules Applied
- Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.15(a-1): Requires the court to inquire on the record during or immediately after sentencing whether the defendant has sufficient resources to pay fines and costs.
- Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 43.035: Provides that a defendant may notify the court of a difficulty in paying costs at any time after sentencing, triggering a mandatory hardship hearing.
- Tex. R. App. P. 33.1: The general rule requiring a timely objection to preserve error for appellate review.
- Cruz v. State, 698 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024): Establishing that the ability-to-pay inquiry is not a fundamental or systemic requirement that bypasses the need for an objection.
Application
The court’s analysis centered on the distinction between “mandatory” statutory duties and “waivable” or “forfeitable” rights. Although Article 42.15(a-1) uses the word “shall,” the Third Court of Appeals followed the Court of Criminal Appeals’ precedent in Cruz, noting that the inquiry is not fundamental to the adjudicatory system’s proper functioning. The court observed that at the conclusion of sentencing, when the trial court asked if anything further was required, Crayton’s counsel requested appellate representation but did not mention the missing financial inquiry. This silence resulted in the forfeiture of the complaint.
Beyond preservation, the court addressed the lack of harm. Because Article 43.035 allows a party to seek relief from costs “forever after sentencing” by demonstrating undue hardship, the trial court’s initial failure to inquire does not result in an irreversible deprivation of rights. The court maintains jurisdiction to address these financial burdens later, rendering the error, even if it had been preserved, non-reversible.
Holding
To preserve error regarding a trial court’s failure to perform a mandatory financial inquiry, a party must make a timely and specific objection on the record.
The omission of a mandatory financial inquiry is not reversible error because the party may invoke the trial court’s continuing jurisdiction to seek relief based on hardship at any time after the judgment is signed.
Practical Application
In family law enforcement, specifically where “ability to pay” is a defense or a statutory factor for the assessment of fees and costs, litigators must be proactive. If a judge fails to make a required finding or inquiry regarding your client’s indigency or financial capacity before signing an order for costs or contempt, you must object. Conversely, if you represent the movant and the judge skips a step that favors the respondent, the respondent’s failure to object likely locks in the order and insulates it from a later challenge on those specific grounds.
Checklists
Preserving Error in Financial Inquiries
- Identify “shall” language in the relevant Code of Criminal Procedure or Family Code sections governing the hearing.
- Monitor the record to ensure the court explicitly addresses the party’s “ability to pay” before the conclusion of the hearing.
- Interpose a specific objection if the court proceeds to assessment without the inquiry.
- Request a specific finding of fact regarding financial resources if the statute requires it.
Remedying Post-Judgment Financial Hardship
- Invoke Article 43.035 if the client is faced with costs they cannot pay following a quasi-criminal family law order.
- File a formal notification with the trial court detailing the “undue hardship.”
- Ensure the notification complies with the methods listed in Article 43.035(b).
- Prepare evidence for a hardship hearing to seek alternative satisfaction (e.g., community service or waiver).
Citation
Crayton v. State, No. 03-24-00777-CR, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 20, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized in Texas divorce or custody litigation when dealing with attorney’s fee awards and court costs in enforcement actions. In many SAPCR or enforcement cases, a party may attempt to overturn an order by claiming the trial court failed to follow a statutory “roadmap” regarding financial disclosures or capacity inquiries. Under the logic of Crayton, if that party did not object to the procedural shortcut at the time, the “mandatory” nature of the statute provides no sanctuary on appeal. For the strategic litigator, if the court is leaning in your favor but skipping a minor statutory inquiry, you might choose to remain silent, knowing that the opposing side is likely forfeiting their only ground for reversal. If the error is later raised, Crayton provides the shield: the error is neither fundamental nor, in many cases, reversible, so long as a post-judgment remedy for “undue hardship” exists.
~~74ab39f5-7c8e-47dc-9368-8b05dc184855~~
Share this content: