Garcia, Daniel, 663 S.W.3d 92

Appellant (Garcia) was convicted of aggravated sexual assault, sentenced to 12 years, and the trial court orally ordered $1,000 restitution to the Office of the Attorney General for a forensic sexual‑assault exam; the DA paid the exam and the AG reimbursed the DA.
The restitution was included in the written judgment; defense counsel said "Not at this time" when asked if any legal reason sentence should not be imposed and did not object to restitution at trial or in a motion for new trial.
On appeal the Third Court of Appeals deleted the restitution order, reasoning there was no evidence the victim had paid for the exam or was responsible for paying it and restitution may be paid only to a victim or someone who compensated the victim.
The State argued the challenge was to the propriety of the restitution order and therefore had to be preserved; Garcia argued his challenge attacked the factual basis (sufficiency) and thus did not require preservation under Idowu.
The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to resolve whether an objection was required to preserve a challenge to a restitution order and whether Idowu/Mayer allow bypassing preservation for factual‑basis/sufficiency complaints.
The Court held preservation was required, concluded Garcia forfeited the complaint by not objecting at trial, reversed the court of appeals, and affirmed the trial court judgment (reinstating the restitution order).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant must object in the trial court to preserve a challenge to a restitution order	Objection unnecessary if complaint targets the factual basis/sufficiency (Idowu/Mayer)	Preservation is required for restitution‑order challenges; propriety challenges must be raised	Preservation required; Garcia forfeited by failing to object
Whether Idowu’s factual‑basis vs appropriateness distinction allows appellate sufficiency review without trial objection	Idowu permits construing factual‑basis claims as evidentiary sufficiency claims that need not be preserved	Idowu did not establish a rule excusing preservation; distinction is unclear and ill‑suited for restitution context	Court abandons that distinction for restitution orders and requires preservation
Whether Mayer and Moff support excusing preservation for restitution challenges	Mayer suggests sufficiency complaints about reimbursement-type orders need not be preserved	Mayer is distinguishable (different statute and factual focus); Moff did not address restitution preservation	Mayer not extended; Moff inapplicable; preservation still required

Idowu v. State, 73 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (discussed factual‑basis vs propriety distinction for restitution but did not hold preservation unnecessary)
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (addressed sufficiency without trial objection for reimbursement of appointed‑attorney fees; distinguished here)
Moff v. State, 131 S.W.3d 485 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (addressed preservation for sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction; did not govern restitution preservation)
Cartwright v. State, 605 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (due‑process requires some evidence supporting amount of restitution)
Ceballos v. State, 246 S.W.3d 369 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (restitution may be paid to victim or to person who compensated the victim)
Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (constitutional errors can be forfeited by failure to object at trial)
Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (constitutional error preservation principles)
Gillenwaters v. State, 205 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (preservation promotes trial‑level correction and judicial economy)
Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (appellate courts may address preservation even if court of appeals did not explicitly do so)