Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed April 26, 2017
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-00465-CR
VANESSA DENISE THOMAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F13-52793-N
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Evans
Opinion by Justice Bridges
Vanessa Denise Thomas appeals her conviction, following the adjudication of her guilt,
for aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years. The trial court assessed
punishment at thirteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in
which he 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. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he
did not file a pro se response. 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).
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree
the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 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 younger than fourteen years, an
offense subject to the sex offender registration requirements of Chapter 62. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.001(5)(A) (West Supp. 2015). The judgment, however, states the sex
offender registration requirements “do not apply to the Defendant.” Accordingly, on our own
motion, we modify the judgment to show that sex offender registration requirements apply and
the victim’s age was six years. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–
28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Estrada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 57, 63–64 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009,
no pet.).
As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
160465F.U05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
VANESSA DENISE THOMAS, Appellant On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-16-00465-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F13-52793-N.
Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Lang-Miers and Evans participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court 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 six years.
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered April 26, 2017.
–3–