Court Opinion

ID: 3075372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:09:07.231101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:50.145048
License: Public Domain

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