Opinion
No. 05-14-00556-CR
09-25-2015
JASON ALLEN SKINNER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F12-00955-M
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Brown
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
A jury convicted Jason Allen Skinner of aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2014). The trial court assessed punishment at twelve years' imprisonment. On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases).
Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel's brief, appellant's pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court's duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
Although not an arguable issue, we note the trial court's judgment contains an error. Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child, an offense that is subject to the sex offender registration requirements of Chapter 62. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.001(5)(A) (West Supp. 2014). The judgment erroneously states the age of the victim at the time of the offense is "N/A." We modify the judgment to show that sex offender registration requirements apply and the victim's age was ten years. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd).
During the trial, the complainant testified she was sixteen years of age, but she was ten years of age at the time of the offense. --------
As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment. We order the trial court to issue an amended judgment that reflects this change and to include the language required by the Texas sex offender registration statutes. Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
140556F.U05
/Carolyn Wright/
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F12-00955-M).
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, Justices Myers and Brown participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is MODIFIED to show that Sex Offender Registration Requirements do apply to the defendant and that the age of the victim at the time of the offense was ten years.
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment.
We ORDER the trial court to issue an amended judgment that reflects the above changes and to include any other language required by the Texas sex offender registration.