Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed September 25, 2015 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00556-CR 

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). 
‐2‐ 

 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.”1 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). 

 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 

                                                            

1 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. 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
‐3‐ 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JASON ALLEN SKINNER, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00556-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 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. 

Judgment entered September 25, 2015.