From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sidner v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Sep 4, 2013
NO. 09-12-00262-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 4, 2013)

Opinion

NO. 09-12-00262-CR

09-04-2013

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.

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 modify the judgment to delete the $5,697 in attorney's fees. We affirm the trial court's judgment as modified.

Sidner may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

____________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice
Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.


Summaries of

Sidner v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Sep 4, 2013
NO. 09-12-00262-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 4, 2013)
Case details for

Sidner v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM MICHAEL SIDNER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Date published: Sep 4, 2013

Citations

NO. 09-12-00262-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 4, 2013)