Michael Steven Sickler v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
• Decided: February 19, 2026
• Docket: 06-25-00086-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00086-CR

MICHAEL STEVEN SICKLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 56127-B

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Steven Sickler was indicted for sexual assault of a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE

ANN. § 22.011(a)(2) (Supp.). Sickler entered an open plea of guilty, and the trial court sentenced

him to twenty years’ imprisonment. Sickler appeals.

Sickler’s attorney filed a brief stating that she reviewed the record and found no

genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural

history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court

proceedings. Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders

v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d

403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]

1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

On September 29, 2025, counsel mailed Sickler copies of the brief, her motion to

withdraw, and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record. Counsel informed Sickler of

his rights to review the record and file a pro se response. On October 21, 2025, we sent notice

that the case had been set for submission and that any pro se response needed to be filed by

November 12, 2025. On November 10, 2025, Sickler filed a pro se motion seeking access to the

record, which was granted. Sickler’s pro se response was due December 29, 2025. On January

9, 2026, notice was sent that the case was again set for submission on the briefs for January 30,

2026. We have received no pro se response from Sickler.

2 We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no

reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

In the Anders context, once we determine that no reversible error exists, we must affirm the trial

court’s judgment. Id.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice

Date Submitted: January 30, 2026 Date Decided: February 19, 2026

Do Not Publish

1 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 3