Ayala, Luis Daniel, PD-1105-17

Appellant Luis Daniel Ayala was convicted (plea agreement) of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance; sentenced to 30 years concurrent and ordered to pay $180 restitution to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) for drug testing.
Officers executed an arrest warrant and a first search; after removing occupants they re-entered for a safety sweep, observed contraband, then obtained and executed a second search warrant which produced the seized drugs and firearms.
At the suppression hearing defense counsel focused on defects in the first search warrant and expressly stated the second warrant was not the issue for that hearing.
On appeal Ayala contested: (1) denial of the motion to suppress (arguing the second warrant was invalid because it relied on evidence from an unlawful secondary sweep), and (2) the restitution order (arguing DPS was not a direct victim and the $180 lacked evidentiary support).
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed: suppression issue was not preserved because the trial court wasn’t asked to rule on the second-warrant theory; restitution claims were waived by the plea agreement and by failure to challenge DPS as a victim at trial.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the second search warrant (and resulting evidence) should be suppressed because it stemmed from an unlawful secondary sweep	The second warrant’s probable cause derived from an unlawful post-arrest sweep; evidence should be suppressed	Appellant did not raise the second-warrant theory at the suppression hearing; issue was not preserved	Not preserved; suppression challenge overruled
Whether DPS is a "victim" entitled to restitution	DPS is not a person who suffered loss as a direct result of the offense; restitution improper	Restitution was part of the plea agreement and not challenged at trial	Waived/overruled — appellant waived challenge by agreeing to plea
Whether the $180 restitution lacked evidentiary support	The record did not support awarding $180 for DPS testing	Appellant agreed to the $180 as part of the plea; plea operates as a contractual waiver of the challenge	Waived — appellant agreed to restitution in plea

Hanna v. State, 426 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (restitution is part of punishment; limits on who may be a restitution recipient)
Thomas v. State, 408 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (a valid guilty plea waives appellate complaints only when the judgment is rendered independent of and not supported by the error)
Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (plea-related waiver principles)
Idowu v. State, 73 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (challenges to the appropriateness of restitution must be raised at trial)
Jenkins v. State, 493 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (issues not presented to the trial court may be forfeited on appeal)