Anastassov, Stoyan K., 664 S.W.3d 815

Background

Appellant was tried in a single proceeding on two indictments for second-degree indecency with a child; the jury found him guilty on both counts.
The jury assessed nine years’ confinement and a $10,000 fine for one conviction, and three years’ confinement and a $10,000 fine for the other; the trial court’s oral pronouncements and written judgments stated the sentences would run concurrently.
The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but sua sponte deleted the $10,000 fine from one written judgment, reasoning duplicate fines were improper for multiple offenses tried together and might amount to an illegal sentence.
The State Prosecuting Attorney sought discretionary review limited to the propriety of deleting the fine; the Court of Criminal Appeals granted review.
The Court of Criminal Appeals held that fines are part of a lawful sentence and must appear in the written judgment; a court lacks authority to delete a jury’s lawfully-assessed fine merely to avoid possible administrative “double billing.”
The CCA reversed the court of appeals’ deletion of the $10,000 fine (reinstating it) and otherwise affirmed the court of appeals’ disposition.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Anastassov's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals could delete a lawfully‑assessed concurrent $10,000 fine from a judgment	Deletion was improper; the judgment must reflect the jury’s lawful punishment	Deletion was a reasonable protection against potential double‑billing by authorities	Court reversed deletion; reinstated the fine — courts may not delete a lawful jury‑assessed fine from the judgment
Whether concurrent‑sentence principles apply to fines in a same‑criminal‑episode prosecution	Concurrent sentences include fines; multiple concurrent fines discharge jointly so defendant pays only the largest	Concern that concurrent fines might be mistakenly collected as stacked amounts	Court accepted (undisturbed) that concurrent fines discharge jointly and that the judgments’ "concurrent" notation sufficed to show joint discharge
Whether Art. 102.073 (single assessment of costs) authorizes deleting duplicate fines	Art. 102.073 applies only to costs/fees, not punitive fines; it does not justify deleting fines	Court of appeals relied on Article 102.073 to delete duplicate fine	Court held Article 102.073 does not apply to fines and that reliance on it was incorrect
Whether courts may modify judgments to prevent administrative errors (e.g., double‑billing) by removing lawful punishment	The proper course is to leave lawful punishments in judgments; administrative errors are addressed by remedies like habeas	Deleting fines from judgments is an acceptable prophylactic to prevent collection errors	Court rejected prophylactic deletion as improper; left lawful fines in judgment and suggested habeas/collateral relief if wrongful collection occurs

Key Cases Cited

Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (fines are punitive and part of the sentence)
Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (distinguishing fines from court costs)
Kersh v. State, 127 S.W.3d 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (sentence includes amount of fine)
Ette v. State, 559 S.W.3d 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (trial court cannot alter a lawful jury punishment verdict)
Aguilera, 165 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (trial court may not alter jury‑assessed lawful sentence)
Crook v. State, 248 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (plurality opinion: §3.03(a) concurrent‑sentence provision applies to fines)
Ex parte Pue, 552 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (definition of illegal sentence)
Petetan v. State, 622 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (ripeness doctrine in criminal context)