MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed October 26, 2018.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 01141
- CR No. 05
- 17
- 01142
- CR GEORGE EDWARD PURDY , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F07
- 33144
- S, F07
- 33145
- S 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Evans, and Brown Opinion by Justice Brown Appellant George Edwar d Purdy appeals two convictions, following the adjudication of his guilt, for sexual assault of a child. The trial court assessed punishment a t ten years’ imprisonment in each case. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which s he concludes
the appeals are 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, 81 2 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of
Anders ) . Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313,
319

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ( not ing appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).– 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 appeals are frivolous and without merit.
See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 82 6

– 2 7 (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, w e note the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt in each

case contain s several error s
. The record shows a ppellant pleaded not true to the allegations in the State’s motions to adjudicate guilt

. The judgments , however, incorrectly recite appellant pleaded true to the motions to adjudicate and that terms of plea bargain were “10 Years TDC No Fine.” Because appellant pleaded not true, there were no plea bargain terms. On our own motion, we modify the
section of e ach judg ment entitled “plea to motion to adjudicate” to show “not true,” and the section entitled “terms of plea bargain” to show “none.” 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).
Further , a ppellant was convicted of sexual assault of a child in both cases , an offense that is subject to the sex offender registration requirements of Chapter 62 of the code of criminal procedure.
See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 62.001(5)(A) (West 201 8 ). The judgment s erroneously state the sex offender registration requirements do not apply and that the age of the victim at the time of the
offense is “N/A.” 1 On our own motion, we modify both judgment s a djudicating guilt to show that sex offender registration requirements apply and the victim’s age was fifteen years at the time of the
offense. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 62.051; T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.2(b); Bigley , 865 S.W.2d

at 27

– 28; Asberry , 813 S. W.2d at 529

– 30.

1 1 During the trial, the complainant testified she was fourteen years of age when she met appellant online , and that although they met in person when she was still fourteen years of age, appellant had sex with her when she was fifteen years of age.– 3

–

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt in each case.

/Ada Brown/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47
171141F.U05– 4

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

GEORGE EDWARD PURDY, Appellant

No. 05

- 17

- 01141

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F07

- 33144

- S. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Justices Myers an d Evans participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment adjudicating guilt of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” is modified to show “Not True.”
The section entitled “Te rms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “None.” The section entitled “Sex Offender Registration Requirements” is modified to show “Sex Offender Registration Requirements do apply to the Defendant. The age of the victim at the time of the offense was 15 years.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.

Judgment entered this 26th day of October, 2018.– 5

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

GEORGE EDWARD PURDY, Appellant
No. 05

- 17

- 01142

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F07

- 33145

- S. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Justices Myers and Evans participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment adjudicating guilt of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” is modified to show “Not True.” The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is mo dified to show “None.” The section entitled “Sex Offender Registration Requirements” is modified to show “Sex Offender Registration Requirements do apply to the Defendant. The age of the victim at the time of the offense was 15 years.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.

Judgment entered this 26 th day of October, 2018.