Alexis Elaina Walker v. State, 557 S.W.3d 678

On Nov. 28, 2014, Alexis Walker shot and killed her husband, Mark Updyke, after he climbed through a window into their shared mobile home following an earlier argument and texts between them. Walker fired four shots (one to the chest, three to the back).
Walker had been drinking heavily that evening, sent multiple threatening texts (including admissions she would kill him), and retrieved a loaded gun from a locked box before shooting.
At trial Walker claimed self‑defense/defense of property and argued she was entitled to a jury instruction presuming reasonableness of deadly force because Updyke unlawfully entered (burglary). She also sought a sudden‑passion instruction at punishment.
The jury convicted Walker of murder and the trial court sentenced her to 30 years’ imprisonment. The trial court’s judgment also assessed $13,980 in court‑appointed attorney’s fees.
On appeal Walker challenged: (1) omission of a presumption/reasonableness instruction tied to burglary at guilt/innocence; (2) omission of a sudden‑passion instruction at punishment; and (3) assessment of attorney’s fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Walker)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Walker was entitled to a jury instruction presuming reasonableness of deadly force because Updyke committed burglary by entering without consent	Walker: her temporary act of locking Updyke out made him an unlawful entrant; she had a greater right to possession that evening so burglary presumption applied	State: evidence showed joint ownership/possession; no proof Walker’s right to possession exceeded Updyke’s; entry was not unlawful burglary	Court: No. Walker failed to show she had greater right to possession; burglary/presumption instruction not warranted.
Whether the punishment phase required a sudden‑passion instruction	Walker: she was scared and angry; evidence of prior abuse and events that night support sudden passion	State: evidence showed deliberation, prior texts and preparations (retrieved a loaded gun) indicate cool reflection, not sudden passion	Court: No. Evidence showed deliberation and planning; sudden passion not raised by record.
Whether the trial court properly assessed court‑appointed attorney’s fees against an indigent defendant	Walker: assessment improper because she was indigent and no proof of changed financial resources	State: conceded error on fees	Court: Modify judgment to delete $13,980 in attorney’s fees.

Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (two‑step jury‑charge‑error standard)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (harm standard for charge error)
Morgan v. State, 501 S.W.3d 84 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (co‑tenant may be a non‑owner if another party holds greater right to possession)
Brown v. State, 955 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (trial court must charge defensive issues raised by evidence)
McKinney v. State, 179 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (elements required to raise sudden passion)
Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (financial resources are critical before ordering reimbursement of court‑appointed counsel)
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (indigency presumption and constraints on assessing attorney’s fees)