Comb — Conviction affirmed, but $100 fine and costs removed

Case
Armand Shabbaz Comb v. The State of Texas
Court
Texas First Court of Appeals
Judge
Adams (Greg Abbott, 2020); Rivas-Molloy (elected 2020)
Date Decided
July 14, 2026
Docket No.
01-25-00059-CR
Topics
Criminal Appeals, Anders Briefs, Sentencing, Court Costs
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

A jury convicted Armand Shabbaz Comb of indecency with a child by exposure. After finding two enhancement allegations true, the jury assessed punishment at 48 years in prison.

The written judgment imposed that prison term along with a $100 fine, $290 in court costs, and $370 in reimbursement fees. Comb’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that the record contained no reversible error, while also challenging the fine, costs, and fees. Comb did not submit a pro se response, and the State waived a response.

The Court’s Holding

After independently reviewing the entire record, the First Court of Appeals concluded that the appeal presented no reversible error or arguable grounds for review apart from the requested corrections to the judgment. It therefore treated the appeal as frivolous under Anders and granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw.

The court struck the $100 fine because neither the jury nor the trial court orally imposed it at sentencing, and the oral pronouncement controlled over the conflicting written judgment. It also modified the judgment to state that no costs or fees were assessed because Comb had been found indigent and the certified bill of costs showed that all costs and fees had been “probated or waived.” The court affirmed the judgment as modified.

Key Takeaways

  • A punitive fine must be orally pronounced in the defendant’s presence and cannot be added solely through the written judgment.
  • An appellate court may reform a judgment in an Anders appeal when the record supplies the information necessary to correct it.
  • A written judgment assessing costs and fees may be modified when the record shows that the indigent defendant’s obligations were waived and the bill of costs lists a zero balance.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates that an Anders determination does not prevent an appellate court from correcting nonreversible errors in a criminal judgment. Even when no arguable basis exists to overturn the conviction or prison sentence, the court may remove financial obligations that conflict with the oral sentence or the trial court’s documented indigency determination.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top