James Anthony Hillesheim v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: 09-24-00410-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00410-CR __________________

JAMES ANTHONY HILLESHEIM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 258th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR23-0303 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant James Anthony Hillesheim (“Appellant” or

“Hillesheim”) for indecency with a child by sexual contact, a second-degree felony.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1), (d). The indictment alleged two previous

felony convictions as an enhancement. Hillesheim pleaded “not guilty,” but the jury

found him guilty as charged in the indictment. 1 At a hearing on punishment,

1 The Judgment of Conviction notes, “[t]he age of the victim at the time of the offense was 8 years of age.” 1 Hillesheim pleaded “not true” to the alleged enhancement, but the jury found the

enhancement true and sentenced Hillesheim to imprisonment for life and imposed a

$10,000 fine.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered appellate attorney filed a brief stating

that she has reviewed the case and, based on her professional evaluation of the record

and applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978). We granted an extension of time for Hillesheim to file a pro se brief, and we

received no response from Hillesheim.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire

record and counsel’s brief in this case, and we have found nothing that would

arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion

that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible

error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment

of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

2 That said, we note that the section of the judgment entitled “Statute for

Offense[]” recites the statutory section as “21.11(d)[.]” The indictment charged

Hillesheim for indecency with a child by sexual conduct, which is set forth in section

21.11(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1). This

Court has the authority to reform the trial court’s judgment to correct nonreversible

clerical errors. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1993). We therefore reform the judgment to delete “21.11(d)” and to

substitute “21.11(a)(1).”

We affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction as reformed. 2

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on September 23, 2025 Opinion Delivered October 1, 2025 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

2 Hillesheim may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3