Affirmed as Modified and Op inion 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 a ggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.021(a)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2014). The trial court assessed punishment at twelve years’ impris onment. On appeal, appe llant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is who lly 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 appe llate courts and counsel in Anders cases).‐ 2 ‐ Appellant filed a pro se response raising seve ral issues After reviewing counsel’s brief, appellant’s pro se response, and th e record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the r ecord 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 assau lt of a child, an offense that is subject to the sex offender registration requirements of Chapter 62. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. 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 s how that sex offender registration requirements apply and the victim’s age was ten years. See T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 orde r the trial court to issue an amended judgment that reflects this change an d to include the language required by the Texas sex offender registration statutes.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 140556F.U05

1 During the trial, the complainant testified sh e was sixteen years of age, but she was ten years of age at the time of the offen se. /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 Br own 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 j udgment that reflects the above changes and to include any other language require d by the Texas sex offender registration.

Judgment entered September 25, 2015.