William Michael Sidner v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-12-00262-CR
____________________
WILLIAM MICHAEL SIDNER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 359th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10-04-04064 CR
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted William Michael Sidner of burglary of a habitation and the
trial court sentenced Sidner to twenty-five years in prison. Sidner’s appellate
counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record
and concludes Sidner’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978). Sidner filed a pro se brief in response.
1
The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits
of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine
that: (1) “the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has
reviewed the record and finds no reversible error”; or (2) “arguable grounds for
appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be
appointed to brief the issues.” Id.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have
independently examined the clerk’s and the reporter’s records, and we agree that
no arguable issues support an appeal. We find it unnecessary to order appointment
of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). However, according to the judgment, the trial court
assessed $5,697 in attorney’s fees. The record does not indicate that Sidner has the
financial resources to enable him to pay attorney’s fees. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. arts. 26.04(p), 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2012); see also Roberts v. State, 327
S.W.3d 880, 883-84 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010, no pet.). Accordingly, we
2
modify the judgment to delete the $5,697 in attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial
court’s judgment as modified. 1
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
________________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on June 21, 2013
Opinion Delivered September 4, 2013
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
1
Sidner may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3